Are Mormons' Christians?

[Zakuska]

Well, your God has been found out to be an idol, created in the image of man.

Get that right PD1..

Man was created in Gods image and likness. And to look at the Man Jesus Christ is to look upon his father.

[PD1]

Well, your God has been found out to be an idol, created in the image of man.

Get that right PD1..

Man was created in Gods image and likness. And to look at the Man Jesus Christ is to look upon his father.

Z, the LDS God was a man at one time, correct? He became God according to Joseph Smith and others. Yet, in all this becoming, all these needs that needed fulfilling, and when compared to the God of the Bible, this LDS God isn't really God at all, because he's comparable to creation. In fact, the imagery that the LDS give about God is that he is an exalted man, with a body of flesh and bone, is that not right? Talk about exchanging "the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man" (Rom. 1:23), the LDS have done that very thing by accepting such imagery. And then to assume that Jesus was talking about physical appearance when he said, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father," only adds to the idolatry, for the assumption is that God needs a physical existence in order for Jesus' words to be understood.

Here's a suggestion, Z, go back and read John 14:8-10, and then report to us how the passage makes any sense at all, if Jesus was referring to physicality. For Jesus also said in the very same passage that the Father was "in him." Well, if the Father was physically in Jesus, and people could "see" him, then why didn't Phillip, and the rest who were present, inquire about who the other person was that was "in Jesus" at the time? They saw God the Father, didn't they?

I'm praying, Z, that one day the real God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will manifest to you who he really is, for right now, I'm sorry, you haven't a clue.

[Zakuska]

PD1,

Z, the LDS God was a man at one time, correct? He became God according to Joseph Smith and others. Yet, in all this becoming, all these needs that needed fulfilling, and when compared to the God of the Bible, this LDS God isn't really God at all, because he's comparable to creation. In fact, the imagery that the LDS give about God is that he is an exalted man, with a body of flesh and bone, is that not right? Talk about exchanging "the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man" (Rom. 1:23), the LDS have done that very thing by accepting such imagery. And then to assume that Jesus was talking about physical appearance when he said, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father," only adds to the idolatry, for the assumption is that God needs a physical existence in order for Jesus' words to be understood.

An "immaterial" God does not exist. It is <empty space>.

Since God is a Glorified Immortal man. He is not "corruptible" like man is now. He will never die again. Flesh and bone <> Flesh and blood. Flesh and bone is not corruptible. Flesh and blood is.

Here's a suggestion, Z, go back and read John 14:8-10, and then report to us how the passage makes any sense at all, if Jesus was referring to physicality. For Jesus also said in the very same passage that the Father was "in him." Well, if the Father was physically in Jesus, and people could "see" him, then why didn't Phillip, and the rest who were present, inquire about who the other person was that was "in Jesus" at the time? They saw God the Father, didn't they?

Is not Gods DNA in every man on the earth? Acts 17:26

I'm praying, Z, that one day the real God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will manifest to you who he really is, for right now, I'm sorry, you haven't a clue.

The God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses had body parts and passions. And like Paul O says... What a MAN!

[Paul Osborne]

And like Paul O says... What a MAN!

Amen, brother.

God is a living Man. Everything about the universe is contained in the mind of a divine Man.

Paul O

[PD1]

PD1,

Z, the LDS God was a man at one time, correct? He became God according to Joseph Smith and others. Yet, in all this becoming, all these needs that needed fulfilling, and when compared to the God of the Bible, this LDS God isn't really God at all, because he's comparable to creation. In fact, the imagery that the LDS give about God is that he is an exalted man, with a body of flesh and bone, is that not right? Talk about exchanging "the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man" (Rom. 1:23), the LDS have done that very thing by accepting such imagery. And then to assume that Jesus was talking about physical appearance when he said, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father," only adds to the idolatry, for the assumption is that God needs a physical existence in order for Jesus' words to be understood.

An "immaterial" God does not exist. It is <empty space>.

Since God is a Glorified Immortal man. He is not "corruptible" like man is now. He will never die again. Flesh and bone <> Flesh and blood. Flesh and bone is not corruptible. Flesh and blood is.

Here's a suggestion, Z, go back and read John 14:8-10, and then report to us how the passage makes any sense at all, if Jesus was referring to physicality. For Jesus also said in the very same passage that the Father was "in him." Well, if the Father was physically in Jesus, and people could "see" him, then why didn't Phillip, and the rest who were present, inquire about who the other person was that was "in Jesus" at the time? They saw God the Father, didn't they?

Is not Gods DNA in every man on the earth? Acts 17:26

I'm praying, Z, that one day the real God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will manifest to you who he really is, for right now, I'm sorry, you haven't a clue.

The God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses had body parts and passions. And like Paul O says... What a MAN!

So, you're admitting that God needs physical materialism, as well as DNA, in order to exist, while distorting a biblical verse that following a verse which says that God needs nothing.

Once again, as soon as you make such a statement, you've also just admitted that you're honoring and worshiping an idol. For only idols are imperfect and in need of anything to exist, whereas the God of scripture, who brought all things into being, is without need, and perfectly self-exists as he always has, eternally.

[PD1]

And like Paul O says...  What a MAN!

Amen, brother.

God is a living Man. Everything about the universe is contained in the mind of a divine Man.

Paul O

No, Paul. "God is not a man, that he should lie," remember (Num. 23:19)? So, unless you're also willing to call God a liar, then he is not a man either.

[Tanyan]

Numbers 23:9- Frequently cited by critics, ignoring the context,this english translation appears on its face to give creedence to the classic argument.

But examination of the original Hebrew reveals a very different meaning.

The first word translated as "man" in this verse comes from the Hebrew word "ish", which is a comparitive form of the word "man". This word is used to compare one type of "man" with another type of "man",not to contrast men with other species of beings.It is used, for example, to refer to a man as opposed to a woman, a husband as opposed to a wife, a younger man as opposed to a older man, [Gesenius Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, Samual Tregelles, trans. Grand Rapids: Baker Books 1979].

Women, wives and older men are all beings of the same species. the Hebrew word "ish" assumes that characteristic as the point of simularity on which it is used to make comparisons. Those comparisons are made only on the basis of gender, marital status,age,ect, not on the basis of species. In this passage, the attribute being compared through use of the word "ish" is the trait of "Honesty", not manhood. The verse compares GOD as a man who does not lie with mortals who do lie. The passage always assumes GOD is a man.

Tha words translated "son of man" in the next portion of the verse are taken from the Hebrew "ben adam", a phrase used to refer specifically to a mortal man, literaly ason of Adam [ibid]. The contrast is not between GOD and man,for that would have required use of the Hebrew word adam alone. The contrast is between GOD, an Immortal Man,who is morally perfect, and mortal men who are morally imperfect and in need of repentence. Again the assumption is that GOD is a man.

The language of this verse in the original Hebrew was obviously chosen with great care to avoid any suggestion that GOD is a different species or has a different nature than man.Unfortunatly, that care did not survivve translation into English. Numbers 23:19 proclaims that GOD does "not" differ from man in nature, substsance or essence. Rather, it teaches that mortal Men are imperfect, while GOD is a Perfect Man. See [How Greek Philosophy Corrupted The Christian Concept Of GOD] by Richard R Hopkins, 464 pages. Horizon Publishers.

[Tanyan]

PD1, I hope that last post was not intended as a sarcastic rock thrown my way from you as one who proclaims Jesus as your Master. My post was on research on the word, thats all. Try Humility/Charity Please. Thanks. In His Grace/Debt, Tanyan.

That's what I thought.

Tell me something T, since you obviously believe that olam, and whatever other Hebrew phrase/word you've "researched" dealing with eternity, has as time element to it, then what prevents anyone from concluding that, once again, the LDS God is imperfect, given his need for finite, increments of time to exist within? In other words, since the LDS God became God at some point in time, then time actually precedes God, and without it, he doesn't exist. In fact, would not finite time logically imply a finite beginning? If not, then how is it possible for the LDS God, or man for that matter, to exist at all, given the impossibility of being able to traverse an actual infinite number of moments in something that either does not exist (time), or without a first moment to start the clock running? Did you think about those things when doing your "research" on olam?

What Doth Athens have to do with Jerusalem ?.

Everything.

Please elaborate on the exact parrallels of Early Israelite/Early 1st Century Christian Doctrines/Teachings/Thought/Practices that match the Schools of thought found in Athens ,Neo/Platonic/Gnostic/Hellenism, and all the others .Please show us the "Everything" of which you confidently stated. I would like to know your thoughts on Daniel C. Peterson's paper : "What Hath Athens to do with Jerusalem ?". In His Grace/Debt, Tanyan.

[Zakuska]

So who's hand did nebacanezzer see writing on the wall?

Dan 5

[Tanyan]

Zakuska, It was a Forgery !.

[PD1]

Numbers 23:9- Frequently cited by critics, ignoring the context,this english translation appears on its face to give creedence to the classic argument.

But examination of the original Hebrew reveals a very different meaning.

The first word translated as "man" in this verse comes from the Hebrew word "ish", which is a comparitive form of the word "man". This word is used to compare one type of "man" with another type of "man",not to contrast men with other species of beings.

First of all "ish" is not a "comparitive [sic] form of the word 'man.'" "Man" is a translation of the word "ish," which is comparable to the Hebrew words "adam" and "enosh." "As with 'en

[Tanyan]

I see that Athens has risen again and resorted to name calling again, when will it ever end ?. Yes your world of neo-platoism is not one I wish to enter.

Can you say the words "Ad hominem ?", liberal eh ?, they have no truth ?.

I now see your view of GOD which is a Non-Gendered-A-Sexual -Hermaphrodite which also makes THE LORD OF LIFE no longer THE GOD "MAN". In His Grace?Debt Tanyan.

[PD1]

I see that Athens has risen again and resorted to name calling again, when will it ever end ?. Yes your world of neo-platoism is not one I wish to enter.

You're already in that which you say you're not. After all, you're the one with the needy God who started out as an aeon ("intelligence"), who through enough self-effort, traversed his way back to where he began, not me.

Can you say the words "Ad hominem ?", liberal eh ?, they have no truth ?.

Hey, if the shoe fits

[Zakuska]

Yes the pomposity continues flowing thik like milk and hone... er vingear and salt from PD1s keyboard.

God

[PD1]

Yes the pomposity continues flowing thik like milk and hone... er vingear and salt from PD1s keyboard.

Pomposity Defined

[quote name='Joseph Smith' date=' Jr.

[Zakuska]

Yep recorded in one mans Journal years later.

Paul was quite a boaster himself.

2 Cor. 7: 14

14 For if I have boasted any thing to him of you, I am not ashamed; but as we spake all things to you in truth, even so our boasting, which I made before Titus, is found a truth.

June 27, 1844, Joseph Smith's boasting "pomposity" is judged by God.

No that would be all the Baptist ministers that led the Mob to kill a prophet of God. They've been killing Gods prophets for all of recorded history.

Praise to the man who communed with Jehovah.... Earth shall atone for the blood of that man.

[PD1]

God

[Zakuska]

Sorry PD1,

Your "immaterial" God doesn't "exist" at all. Hopefully one day you'll grow up and quit believing in the easter bunny.

[PD1]

Yep recorded in one mans Journal years later.

Paul was quite a boaster himself.

2 Cor. 7: 14

14 For if I have boasted any thing to him of you, I am not ashamed; but as we spake all things to you in truth, even so our boasting, which I made before Titus, is found a truth.

June 27, 1844, Joseph Smith's boasting "pomposity" is judged by God.

No that would be all the Baptist ministers that led the Mob to kill a prophet of God.

Oh, the biblical ignorance.

Paul was not boasting in himself, but in the Lord (2 Cor. 10:17), as he expressed confidence in those who were putting up with those engaging in the character assassination of Paul. And that is hardly comparable to what Joseph Smith was "boasting" about just prior to God shutting him up, in part, for denegrating his Son.

And it wasn't the Baptists and "the Mob" that killed the false prophet. God took his life for being the perverse person that he was.

[PD1]

Sorry PD1,

Your "immaterial" God doesn't "exist" at all.

And your God needs materialism in order to exist, right?

[Zakuska]

And it wasn't the Baptists and "the Mob" that killed the false prophet. God took his life for being the perverse person that he was.

So it was God who fired the buletts that rendered him lifeless?

[Teancum]

PD1,

I purely literal read of the Bible passages you use confirm God's aseity. One wonders now if we should be as literal with other passages as well.

For if God needs absolutely nothing then we must accept that he is impassable. He needs nothing and he does not need us. Yet the Bible refers to a myriad of emotions the God seems to have. And if God needs nothing why did he create us? To glorify Him? It cannot be if he needs nothing and if he is impassable. And if he is impassable and needs nothing he is an actuality and not a potentiality. Thus once again our worship, obedience, etc. impact God in not on whit of a way at all.

And if one really needs to accept Thomas Aquinas's systematic theology to be saved then there are a lot of Christians going to Hell.

BTW, you mentioned when I stand before God? You and I cannot stand before a God that needs nothing, is an actuality, is simplicity, is impassable and is an omnipresent non corporeal being. So no worries there.

Yes Jesus Christ, the express image of God is not impassable, immutable, an actuality nor lacking needs. So if we are to understand God the Father by the incarnation of His Son, God in the flesh, then is God really possessing a pure and simple aseity? And if so then Christ, His son has experienced not only change, but has become a thing the Father is not. Christ is the omni man, the theophurus, the forever God Man. His Father, according to your literal systematic theological constraints is simplicity and cannot change. Further the God of Thomas Aquinas that you are espousing here lives outside of time in one eternal now. Thus can God change the past present or future if they are all before Him at once? Is he omnipotent in this one eternal now? Can he change the fact that the Israelites crossed the red see on dry ground? For God the Israelites are crossing the red sea as I type this. If he changes that then will what I am typing change to?

The problem with systematic theology is it is a house of cards. One flaw in it and the whole house tumbles. If God needs nothing then he must logically be and actuality, simple and impassable. And the Bible does not seem to support that. Creating creature as he has dismisses and possibility of impassibility. Thus if he is no impassable He really does need something.

Teancum

[Zakuska]

Sorry PD1,

Your "immaterial" God doesn't "exist" at all.

And your God needs materialism in order to exist, right?

If something doesnt have protons electrons and neutrons it does not exist and is a vacuum.

[ave maria]

Yep... there you go putting limits on God again.

Didn't you do that on another thread, where you implied God couldn't change bread and wine into flesh and blood?

[Teancum]

And I appreciate it.  Yet, despite being candid, can you say that you have been perfectly honest...with yourself?

Yes.

Well, your God has been found out to be an idol, created in the image of man.

My God is not an idol. Man was created in His image.

In fact, he's a needy God, and unless those needs are fulfilled, he cannot exist. 

See above. Your sytamatic theology is making a GOd created in the mind of men. Philisophy...mingeld with scripture.

So, if that's the type of God you're following, just how do you think that affects your motivations, or more importantly, you're eternal destiny?

I already told you. My salvation is secure.

The Bible says that God needs nothing to exist as he is, yet the extra-biblical works of the LDS, along with their leaders contradict the Bible.  So, you cannot be "secure," given that you're accepting something as false, and claiming that it is true.  Either the Bible is true, and the remaining "standard works" and LDS leadership is false, or the Bible is false, and the "standard works" and LDS leadership is true.  Given what you've stated previously, one is under the impression that you believe that God is without need to exist as God.  Is that true or false?  You cannot have it both ways.  If you say that it is true, then don't be stating that you believe in the Standard Works, because that is irrational.  So, which is it?

Drawing pure aseity from the passages you site ignores other attributes of God that the scripture attests to that are incompatible with the God you are attempting to force into your pigeon hole. Simple aseit is a misnomer. While God needs nothing generally He is not the impassable nor is he an actuality. And the LDS standard works do insist on this as well. Study up bucko.

When you come to a conclusion concerning God's aseity, then we'll talk about it.  Until then, you've got a "conundrum" to work through that doesn't need any interference to sidetrack you.

Aseity cannot be studies or pondered in isolation.

Teancum