Which of the Articles of Faith are Necessary to be a Christian?

[mfbukowski]

On 9/26/2018 at 8:35 AM, RevTestament said:

I've heard several complain of that as late. Using a desktop computer I seem to have no problem with this. In fact just within the last two days, I hit an errant key, and my post disappeared. I've noticed with the last software update done by MDDB there is a safety feature. I go back and click on the editor box where i had been typing, and the exact material I had been typing "magically" reappears. Hallellujah! There will also be an editorial X you can hit which informs you that you can "clear" the memory of the editor, so don't hit that! However, I don't know if this works with all browsers. For instance if one is using their smart phone or some dictation software, it may not work. Just a heads up.

Thanks for that!  I have seen that happen but could never figure out the magic behind why sometimes it is there and sometimes not.  (And I am using at least 3 different devices including a phone- if you see weird capitalization it is because it was dictated and the voice to text is pretty kludgie if that is still a word). 

I will try it now consistently and see if it works- Thanks!

 

Edited September 27, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 9/24/2018 at 11:04 AM, Spammer said:

Hi there. Just a reminder that Coptic Orthodoxy and Eastern Orthodoxy are the same in every respect, apart from their christology (miaphysitism vs diaphysitism, respectively).  Coptic and EO chrismation rituals share an identical purpose and theology, although the wording is somewhat different.

Scroll down about 2/3 of the way for the text of the anointing ritual:

http://www.saintjonah.org/services/chrismation.doc

Yes but that anointing ritual is actually quite different and far simpler than ours - it does not mention body parts and how they are blessed, while the Coptic ritual does.

[theplains]

On 9/24/2018 at 8:27 PM, mfbukowski said:

Well I had a long post for you which disappeared when I clicked the wrong tab in looking for a link.

I hate that and wish there was some way of restoring what was previously written- I suppose it all should be copied elsewhere or whatever.

I  consider the Mormon paradigm the most useful and therefore "accurate" model for truths which cannot be discovered any other way.

It is the best paradigm or theory or model about God to improve humanity.  The others seem frankly quite irrational to me.

I do not use the terms true or false unless I have defined their use- which was what the long post was about.

To me, and to create an analogy I think the old "Consubstantial Trinity belief is not justifiable logically and therefore useless for today's society since it does not teach us anything about being "good" or kind or trying to be like Jesus.

I think the idea that Jesus died to balance the scales between mercy and justice is .......  unfounded.

I affirm most emphatically that Jesus took away the effects of my sins and that I will live again and can live forever, but not based on the old Christian model.

If that is calling it "false" then so be it.  I affirm the Mormon model as far better and therefore "true".

Thank you.

[theplains]

On 9/25/2018 at 2:53 PM, RevTestament said:

If Jesus is going to lose His resurrected body when He is called the everlasting Father per Isa 9:6, would you consider this to be a false belief? And that notions that the everlasting Father does not have a body to be false? or false misinterpretation?

I am not sure what the term Everlasting Father means in that verse, but I don't believe its in the sense of having
spirit children with a heavenly wife.  I don't believe Jesus will lose his resurrected body.

Some quotes from Matthew Henry and John Wesley: "He was, from eternity, Father of the great work of redemption: his
heart was upon it; it was the product of his wisdom as the counsellor, of his love as the everlasting Father."

"The father - The father of eternity. Who, though as man he was then unborn, yet was and is from everlasting to everlasting."

On the other hand, Joseph Smith taught Heavenly Father was a man who became a God - he was not from everlasting
to everlasting.

Jim

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

I am not sure what the term Everlasting Father means in that verse, but I don't believe its in the sense of having
spirit children with a heavenly wife.  I don't believe Jesus will lose his resurrected body.

Some quotes from Matthew Henry and John Wesley: "He was, from eternity, Father of the great work of redemption: his
heart was upon it; it was the product of his wisdom as the counsellor, of his love as the everlasting Father."

"The father - The father of eternity. Who, though as man he was then unborn, yet was and is from everlasting to everlasting."

 i do not follow the quotes of men on the nature of the Godhead. I follow the words of God. I think He best knows who He is. If Yeshua was the Father from everlasting then the trinitarian doctrine is incorrect, because it clearly claims the Son is not the Father. Further, there is exactly zero scripture to support such an idea. The Son was begotten by the oath of the Father per scripture. 

I am glad you believe Yeshua will not lose His resurrected body. Scripture tells us that He was also man. In fact He called Himself the son of man repeatedly. What shall He inherit, if not the name and power of the Father?

Quote

On the other hand, Joseph Smith taught Heavenly Father was a man who became a God - he was not from everlasting
to everlasting.

Jim

Yeshua was a man who shall become the Eternal Father. Is He not from everlasting?

[Navidad]

10 hours ago, RevTestament said:

 i do not follow the quotes of men on the nature of the Godhead. I follow the words of God. I think He best knows who He is. If Yeshua was the Father from everlasting then the trinitarian doctrine is incorrect, because it clearly claims the Son is not the Father. Further, there is exactly zero scripture to support such an idea. The Son was begotten by the oath of the Father per scripture. 

I am glad you believe Yeshua will not lose His resurrected body. Scripture tells us that He was also man. In fact He called Himself the son of man repeatedly. What shall He inherit, if not the name and power of the Father?

Yeshua was a man who shall become the Eternal Father. Is He not from everlasting?

I simply think those who are on a quest to understand the nature of God are on a mission impossible. All this talk about the trinity, theosis, Matthew Henry, Patrick Henry, Joseph Smith, or Al Smith; and yes, even of the scriptures is a vain search to understand the unfathomable. The scriptures, whether inclusive of the LDS scriptures or not, are not adequate to give us an adequate  and complete understanding of God's essence and nature. And that is just fine with me. I want to enjoy his presence. I want to practice his presence in my life. That is what gives me peace and comfort.

That is why I know the Saints exclusivity is wrong and why I dwell on that so much. Mine is not a rational search to understand more and more about God. Mine is a daily search to practice his presence in my life. To use an LDS term, those simple "promptings" remind me of the presence of the Spirit in my life - every day. I testify that I know that is real. No insistence on the authority and more important, exclusivity of the proper priesthood will or can take that away the daily indwelling of the Holy Spirit from me. The Holy Spirit is real in my life. Clutching that reality to only their bosoms, is the great blind spot of Mormonism and is the reason I have not, and as of today, will not be baptized into that faith.

Edited September 28, 2018 by Navidad

[Navidad]

I find this information from the World Christian Encyclopedia as quoted on the National Catholic Register site very interesting.   After stating that there are 9000 "denominations" in Protestantism as a whole, the author goes on to talk about 23,600 groups that are called "Independent and Marginal" Christian groups.  I quote " Among the 23,600 “Inde­pen­dents” and “Mar­gin­als” (70% of the whole) are large num­bers of groups one would have a hard time call­ing Protes­tant. They include Mor­mons (122 denom­i­na­tions), Jehovah’s Wit­nesses (229 denom­i­na­tions), Masons (28 denom­i­na­tions), Chris­tadel­phi­ans (21 denom­i­na­tions) Uni­tar­i­ans (29 denom­i­na­tions), Chris­t­ian Sci­ence (59 denom­i­na­tions), Theosophists (3 more denom­i­na­tions), British Israelites (8 denom­i­na­tions), Pros­per­ity Gospel groups (27 denom­i­na­tions), One­ness Pen­te­costals (680 denom­i­na­tions), “Hid­den Bud­dhist Believ­ers in Christ” (9 denom­i­na­tions), wan­der­ing bish­ops (12 denom­i­na­tions), Inde­pen­dent Nesto­ri­ans (5 denom­i­na­tions), occultists (3 denom­i­na­tions), spiri­tists (20 denom­i­na­tions), Zion­ists (159 denom­i­na­tions), even “Arab radio/TV net­work” (19 denom­i­na­tions), “gay/homosexual tra­di­tion” (2 denom­i­na­tions), and schis­matic Catholics (435 denom­i­na­tions). It is a strange and eclec­tic list . . ."  They mention 122 different Mormon groups - usually in my experience these are groups stemming from the teaching of Joseph Smith and those who use the Book of Mormon as scripture. It also lists 435 schismatic Catholic groups. I find the entire article in The Catholic Register very interesting - here is the link:

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/scottericalt/we-need-to-stop-saying-that-there-are-33000-protestant-denominations

[Spammer]

19 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes but that anointing ritual is actually quite different and far simpler than ours - it does not mention body parts and how they are blessed, while the Coptic ritual does.

Mention of body parts and how they’re blessed is there.

“After this Prayer, the Priest straightway anointeth the Convert with the Chrism, making the sign of the cross upon his brow and eyes, and nostrils and lips, and on both ears, and breast, and hands and feet, saying:

The seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit.” 

The priest anoints 12 body parts, described above, sealing each with the gift of the Holy Spirit, as stated. The body is thus marked and sealed with 12 crosses: the brow, each eye, each ear, the nostrils, the lips, the breast, and each hand and foot.

And then, the priest, 

“taking the sponge, and dipping it in the warm water, he wipeth the places which have been anointed with the holy Chrism, saying: 

Thou art justified.  Thou art illumined.  Thou art sanctified;”

The priest wipes each place of anointing with the sponge, saying the three above statements each time, so 12 times total.

All of this takes place within a long series of psalms and prayers. The document I linked is the text of the entire service, including the 12 anointings and 12 washings just described.

Edited September 28, 2018 by Spammer

[mfbukowski]

48 minutes ago, Spammer said:

Mention of body parts and how they’re blessed is there.

“After this Prayer, the Priest straightway anointeth the Convert with the Chrism, making the sign of the cross upon his brow and eyes, and nostrils and lips, and on both ears, and breast, and hands and feet, saying:

The seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit.” 

The priest anoints 12 body parts, described above, sealing each with the gift of the Holy Spirit, as stated. The body is thus marked and sealed with 12 crosses: the brow, each eye, each ear, the nostrils, the lips, the breast, and each hand and foot.

And then, the priest, 

“taking the sponge, and dipping it in the warm water, he wipeth the places which have been anointed with the holy Chrism, saying: 

Thou art justified.  Thou art illumined.  Thou art sanctified;”

The priest wipes each place of anointing with the sponge, saying the three above statements each time, so 12 times total.

All of this takes place within a long series of psalms and prayers. The document I linked is the text of the entire service, including the 12 anointings and 12 washings just described.

Yes I read that before, thanks.

That's quite different.  here he says the same thing for each body part. In the other rite different blessings are given to each body part.

 

Edited September 28, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Spammer]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes I read that before, thanks.

That's quite different.  here he says the same thing for each body part. In the other rite different blessings are given to each body part.

 

Oh, sorry. I misunderstood you.

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, Spammer said:

Oh, sorry. I misunderstood you.

And then there is this on the Coptic side:

"The child is anointed by the Myron only once in life, so we always ask the priests to take care in administering the Myron after Baptism, lest neglect may bring harm to the child.  The priest anoints the new white garments of the child with three signs of the cross, then dresses the baby with the undergarment first saying, �The garment of eternal life to enable them to enter to the Kingdom of heaven.�"

[Spammer]

31 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And then there is this on the Coptic side:

"The child is anointed by the Myron only once in life, so we always ask the priests to take care in administering the Myron after Baptism, lest neglect may bring harm to the child.  The priest anoints the new white garments of the child with three signs of the cross, then dresses the baby with the undergarment first saying, �The garment of eternal life to enable them to enter to the Kingdom of heaven.�"

Yes, everyone to be baptized and chrismated is first dressed in a white garment. The garment isn’t anointed but the baptismal water is. 

The theology and purpose is the same. The Coptic description of the theology within the rite is more thorough than in the Byzantine rite, and the Byzantine is more thorough than the current Latin rite. Washings, anointings and the white garment are in all three; the theology and purpose of the rituals is the same. They all were the same church after all, until the Copts broke away in 451 (or vice versa, if you’re a Copt).

Edited September 28, 2018 by Spammer

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

I simply think those who are on a quest to understand the nature of God are on a mission impossible. All this talk about the trinity, theosis, Matthew Henry, Patrick Henry, Joseph Smith, or Al Smith; and yes, even of the scriptures is a vain search to understand the unfathomable. The scriptures, whether inclusive of the LDS scriptures or not, are not adequate to give us an adequate  and complete understanding of God's essence and nature. And that is just fine with me. I want to enjoy his presence. I want to practice his presence in my life. That is what gives me peace and comfort.

That is why I know the Saints exclusivity is wrong and why I dwell on that so much. Mine is not a rational search to understand more and more about God. Mine is a daily search to practice his presence in my life. To use an LDS term, those simple "promptings" remind me of the presence of the Spirit in my life - every day. I testify that I know that is real. No insistence on the authority and more important, exclusivity of the proper priesthood will or can take that away the daily indwelling of the Holy Spirit from me. The Holy Spirit is real in my life. Clutching that reality to only their bosoms, is the great blind spot of Mormonism and is the reason I have not, and as of today, will not be baptized into that faith.

I do not claim that the present LDS ideas about the nature of God are 100% correct. However, I do think they lead in the right direction. I would point you to Joseph Smith's King Follet discourse(so-called) for a primer. I personally believe since that time ideas have been bantered about that are not correct, but are honest attempts of interpreting scripture. The question of whether God is knowable is an old one. I believe Yeshua revealed the Father to us. I like to refer to Him as the Revelator of the Father. Before He came Jews thought of the Father as an invisible and unknowable God. However, He said He would plainly reveal the Father - I believe He was referring to up on the cross. I further believe that He plainly tells us simple truths that have just not been understood or were "forgotten" even though they stare us right in the face. For instance He said, I do nothing of myself except what I have seen my Father do, and that which He does, the Son does likewise. Joseph Smith said why did He lay down His life? Because He had seen the Father do it. Yeshua Himself is plainly telling us that He followed the Father - just in slightly different words. In fact I believe even their shared name of YHWH points to this. The Hebrew letters were joined together to make their individual meanings into a suggestive word. In other words the meaning of their words were literally derived from the consonants of the words which were originally word pictures. The letters of YHWH mean, Behold/look, the nail, Behold the hand. Visitors to the temple may have a greater appreciation of this - or not yet. 

I realize this concept is foreign to orthodox Christianity, but it is there in the scriptures really as plain as day. You believe the mystery of God's nature is unknowable, and therefore the LDS are "wrong." But scripture does not agree with that viewpoint.

Rev 10:7  7 But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.

Just some things to digest. Joseph Smith restored the true concept of God, which Christianity had lost, but as plainly revealed by Yeshua who taught us that those who saw Him, saw the Father - and He meant every word. Joseph Smith taught, "and this is the great secret - that God is a man who resides up in yonder heavens." A secret plainly revealed to us through His adopted Son Yeshua - His only begotten. Contrary to how orthodoxy portrays LDS, it is not some new heretical idea. It is biblical, revealed also in D&C and the BoM, when interpreted correctly. I suppose this may be a view exclusive to LDS, but I proffer that not even LDS have fully digested it, and have not understood it, so I don't know how accurate your description of exclusivity is, but certainly it is more accurate as applied to LDS than orthodoxy. I'd rather it not be really. I'd rather all of Christianity be on the same page, but then YHWH could not do Their strange act. In time all will be on the same page. All will bend the knee to the greatness of YHWH for He will publish His name to the world.

Cheers, friend.

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I find this information from the World Christian Encyclopedia as quoted on the National Catholic Register site very interesting.   After stating that there are 9000 "denominations" in Protestantism as a whole, the author goes on to talk about 23,600 groups that are called "Independent and Marginal" Christian groups.  I quote " Among the 23,600 “Inde­pen­dents” and “Mar­gin­als” (70% of the whole) are large num­bers of groups one would have a hard time call­ing Protes­tant. They include Mor­mons (122 denom­i­na­tions), Jehovah’s Wit­nesses (229 denom­i­na­tions), Masons (28 denom­i­na­tions), Chris­tadel­phi­ans (21 denom­i­na­tions) Uni­tar­i­ans (29 denom­i­na­tions), Chris­t­ian Sci­ence (59 denom­i­na­tions), Theosophists (3 more denom­i­na­tions), British Israelites (8 denom­i­na­tions), Pros­per­ity Gospel groups (27 denom­i­na­tions), One­ness Pen­te­costals (680 denom­i­na­tions), “Hid­den Bud­dhist Believ­ers in Christ” (9 denom­i­na­tions), wan­der­ing bish­ops (12 denom­i­na­tions), Inde­pen­dent Nesto­ri­ans (5 denom­i­na­tions), occultists (3 denom­i­na­tions), spiri­tists (20 denom­i­na­tions), Zion­ists (159 denom­i­na­tions), even “Arab radio/TV net­work” (19 denom­i­na­tions), “gay/homosexual tra­di­tion” (2 denom­i­na­tions), and schis­matic Catholics (435 denom­i­na­tions). It is a strange and eclec­tic list . . ."  They mention 122 different Mormon groups - usually in my experience these are groups stemming from the teaching of Joseph Smith and those who use the Book of Mormon as scripture. It also lists 435 schismatic Catholic groups. I find the entire article in The Catholic Register very interesting - here is the link:

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/scottericalt/we-need-to-stop-saying-that-there-are-33000-protestant-denominations

You seem to be aware, but most of the groups separated from the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS did so mainly on the issue of polygamy - at first that they would not practice it, and later on the issue that they would not stop practicing it. Sadly, I think this results from the fact that Brigham Young essentially taught that polygamy is necessary for exaltation. So there are numerous small groups in the West which are not joined to the Church because they insisted on practicing polygamy. One is just over the border in the next county from me. I have aerated their lawns and church building. The children seem kempt and happy. The community has a shared employment endeavor. So, I don't characterize all polygamist groups like I would the fundamentalist group down in Colorado City, which I believe has become an unhealthy and abusive group. Anyway the point is there are number of these groups because they are quite small, and they have to fly under the radar so-to-speak, even though I think for the most part Utah has stopped trying to prosecute cases of polygamy. There are also a few who just seem to be little kooky or caught up with themselves, and end up leaving or being excommunicated, and then trying to start their own thing. I don't think any of the schism groups do real temple/proxy work, which I have a strong testimony of as part of the restored gospel. It is a definite mark of the true path.

[Navidad]

3 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

You seem to be aware, but most of the groups separated from the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS did so mainly on the issue of polygamy - at first that they would not practice it, and later on the issue that they would not stop practicing it. Sadly, I think this results from the fact that Brigham Young essentially taught that polygamy is necessary for exaltation. So there are numerous small groups in the West which are not joined to the Church because they insisted on practicing polygamy. One is just over the border in the next county from me. I have aerated their lawns and church building. The children seem kempt and happy. The community has a shared employment endeavor. So, I don't characterize all polygamist groups like I would the fundamentalist group down in Colorado City, which I believe has become an unhealthy and abusive group. Anyway the point is there are number of these groups because they are quite small, and they have to fly under the radar so-to-speak, even though I think for the most part Utah has stopped trying to prosecute cases of polygamy. There are also a few who just seem to be little kooky or caught up with themselves, and end up leaving or being excommunicated, and then trying to start their own thing. I don't think any of the schism groups do real temple/proxy work, which I have a strong testimony of as part of the restored gospel. It is a definite mark of the true path.

Yes, well this site also seems to include every independent Baptist church that belongs to no Baptist group as its own denomination. I think in the end, the numbers are grossly exaggerated. We have a lot of LDS folks to our north and a big group of LeBaron "First Church of the Unborn" to the south of us. They are very clear that they are Mormons and follow the teachings of Smith and the Book of Mormon, and with a wink will tell you they follow them more closely than does the LDS church!

[RevTestament]

5 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Yes, well this site also seems to include every independent Baptist church that belongs to no Baptist group as its own denomination. I think in the end, the numbers are grossly exaggerated. We have a lot of LDS folks to our north and a big group of LeBaron "First Church of the Unborn" to the south of us. They are very clear that they are Mormons and follow the teachings of Smith and the Book of Mormon, and with a wink will tell you they follow them more closely than does the LDS church!

The Lord authorized the body of the Church to select its new presidents, who would hold the keys for the Church. The body of the Church selected Brigham Young. All others are therefore contrary to the words given to Joseph Smith, and are schism groups. They may believe they are following Joseph Smith more closely, and maybe in some ways they are, but they don't have the authorized priesthood, which the Lord told Joseph Smith was being restored to the Church for the last time, nor the keys of the presidency. Even as much as I sometimes disagree with BY, it was he through whom the keys of the presidency passed on. It is the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS, which the Lord continues to work within. As I have alluded that doesn't mean I believe everything various leaders have said - for instance I don't believe Yeshua died only on this world for the sins of all other worlds before and after, and that only this world was wicked enough to do it. I think that reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the office of the Son. I believe the Lord will eventually lead His Church unto all truth. This doesn't mean that the other churches don't have truth nor that the Lord won't save them. In fundamental ways the gospel is pretty simple to follow, but in the end I don't know who will be resurrected or makes it into paradise.

[Anakin7]

9 hours ago, Spammer said:

Mention of body parts and how they’re blessed is there.

“After this Prayer, the Priest straightway anointeth the Convert with the Chrism, making the sign of the cross upon his brow and eyes, and nostrils and lips, and on both ears, and breast, and hands and feet, saying:

The seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit.” 

The priest anoints 12 body parts, described above, sealing each with the gift of the Holy Spirit, as stated. The body is thus marked and sealed with 12 crosses: the brow, each eye, each ear, the nostrils, the lips, the breast, and each hand and foot.

And then, the priest, 

“taking the sponge, and dipping it in the warm water, he wipeth the places which have been anointed with the holy Chrism, saying: 

Thou art justified.  Thou art illumined.  Thou art sanctified;”

The priest wipes each place of anointing with the sponge, saying the three above statements each time, so 12 times total.

All of this takes place within a long series of psalms and prayers. The document I linked is the text of the entire service, including the 12 anointings and 12 washings just described.

    Is there any record in The Old World Holy Writ [The Bible] that details and shows this happened after every reference at the time of a persons Baptism ?.

The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine

Washing My Garment In His Blood

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

[Spammer]

57 minutes ago, Anakin7 said:

    Is there any record in The Old World Holy Writ [The Bible] that details and shows this happened after every reference at the time of a persons Baptism ?.

The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine

Washing My Garment In His Blood

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

No. I’m sure you already knew that.

[Anakin7]

2 hours ago, Spammer said:

No. I’m sure you already knew that.

    Thank you, I did know that, however I thought I would ask in case I missed something.

The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine

Washing My Garment/robe In His Blood

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS, Sentinel, Son Of Thunder, Kryptonian, Warrior

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, Anakin7 said:

    Is there any record in The Old World Holy Writ [The Bible] that details and shows this happened after every reference at the time of a persons Baptism ?.

The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine

Washing My Garment In His Blood

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

The Didache is one of the earliest known records of this kind of thing, but I really don't know the details of what it says about the confirmation process. Perhaps Spammer can tell you.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Anakin7 said:

    Is there any record in The Old World Holy Writ [The Bible] that details and shows this happened after every reference at the time of a persons Baptism ?.

The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine

Washing My Garment In His Blood

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

This was actually a confirmation anointing not for baptism. It happened after baptism but was not a baptism ceremony.

And yes there are some what similar washing and confirmation and setting apart anointings in the Bible.

Exodus 40

"12 And thou shalt bring Aaron and his sons unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and wash them with water.
            13 And thou shalt put upon Aaron the holy garments, and anoint him, and sanctify him; that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office.
            14 And thou shalt bring his sons, and clothe them with coats:
            15 And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father, that they may minister unto me in the priest’s office: for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations"

Some argue there was baptism in the Old Testament but I personally think not.

http://www.nak.org/catechism/8-the-sacraments/81-holy-baptism-with-water/812-the-biblical-basis-for-holy-baptism-with-water/8121-old-testament-references-to-holy-baptism-with-water/

But there are plenty of references to washing and anointing.

 

Edited September 29, 2018 by mfbukowski

[theplains]

On 9/27/2018 at 10:07 PM, RevTestament said:

Yeshua was a man who shall become the Eternal Father. Is He not from everlasting?

I believe Jesus is God from everlasting to everlasting.   I was wondering if you believe if Heavenly Father (not Jesus)
was a man who became a God?

Thanks,
Jim

[RevTestament]

5 minutes ago, theplains said:

I believe Jesus is God from everlasting to everlasting. 

In the same sense that Melchizedek became without father or mother, but "having neither beginning of days, nor end of life..."

Quote

 I was wondering if you believe if Heavenly Father (not Jesus) was a man who became a God?

Thanks,
Jim

If Yeshua did it, didn't He follow the Father?

(Yeshua didn't become "a God." He became one with the Father in power and spirit. The word "god" is meaningless to me.)

[theplains]

On 9/29/2018 at 12:37 PM, RevTestament said:

(Yeshua didn't become "a God." He became one with the Father in power and spirit. The word "god" is meaningless to me.)

It is taught in an LDS seminary manual.

Jim

[mfbukowski]

On 9/29/2018 at 9:24 AM, theplains said:

I believe Jesus is God from everlasting to everlasting.   I was wondering if you believe if Heavenly Father (not Jesus)
was a man who became a God?

Thanks,
Jim

Which "everlasting" are you talking about?

What do you think that phrase means?

What about 5 "everlastings" ago- it only mentions two everlastings??

Eternal life is a wonderful gift but what if there are multiple "eternities" along with multiple universes?

Can you be a man in one and a god in another?   Are you, as an old man the "same person" you were as a child?  Where did that teenager go?

Words and definitions do not limit God- He is beyond words so we just use our primitive grunts to describe Him, and do not do very well in the attempt.

We attempt answers for questions others have not even thought of, and of course, language breaks down.

Edited October 5, 2018 by mfbukowski