alpha Posted July 19, 2005 Posted July 19, 2005 Israel was busy in worshipping other unknown dieties vice Jesus the Christ (LORD God = Jehovah) whom they should of been worshipping. Sure...When they realized they were in distress as in Psalm 107...their God always pulled them out, when they cried unto the Lord...Some of do the same...
ave maria Posted July 19, 2005 Posted July 19, 2005 == Part of the definition of God in the traditional Christian sense is that He is uncreate, which would preclude being human prior to becoming God. He would be God eternally, yesterday, today and forever.The Bible nowhere teaches that God was always God. Respectfully, what difference does it make to a Latter-day Saint whether it does or it doesn't?Traditional Christians can and do cite a number of scriptural references leading them to believe that God is eternal, without beginning or end, and people of good will and good faith, including Latter-day Saints, might interpret those passages differently.But even if those passages were conclusive, Latter-day Saints believe in continuing revelation which can surpass and contradict that which is in the Bible, so anything on that score in the Bible is irrelevant if they believe subsequent revelation has eclipsed it.
Kevin Graham Posted July 19, 2005 Posted July 19, 2005 == Just because something is not addressed, (if you think this way), does it make it correct...or the opposite correct? My point is that it is disingenuous for critics to maintain Mormons are anti-Bible because we don't believe something the Bible doesn't indicate either way.== When someone says they are the first and the last...This sounds pretty good to me. There seems to be no question.Question about what? If someone says they are the beginning and end, what does that mean to you? You know what context is right? Christ created the world in the beginning (alpha). In that sense he is the beginning. Christ will come again as this world ends (omega) and is baptized in fire. "Beginning" always refers to creation of the world in Jewish lit.How you interpret this phrase to mean Christ always existed as God, is a total mystery to me.
ave maria Posted July 19, 2005 Posted July 19, 2005 == Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, to day, and for ever...Hebrews 13:8 "Yesterday" isn't an eternal past. Is it your assertion, then, that "eternal" only means "without end," but not necessarily, "without beginning?"That is, from this point forward eternally, but not into the past eternally?Do you believe when Latter-day Saints pray to "God, the Eternal Father," this is what they perceive "eternal" to mean?
Kevin Graham Posted July 19, 2005 Posted July 19, 2005 == Respectfully, what difference does it make to a Latter-day Saint whether it does or it doesn't?Well it means the world to our critics who claim to be dictating "what the Bible says."== Traditional Christians can and do cite a number of scriptural references leading them to believe that God is eternal, without beginning or end, and people of good will and good faith, including Latter-day Saints, might interpret those passages differently.More importantly Hebrew authorities who know fully well that the Ancient Jews had no concept of "eternity past." The only word they used that could apply to this concept is "olam." It doesn't mean eternity past. In fact it is commonly used to refer to anything that is simply "old."== But even if those passages were conclusive, Latter-day Saints believe in continuing revelation which can surpass and contradict that which is in the Bible, so anything on that score in the Bible is irrelevant if they believe subsequent revelation has eclipsed it. Modern revelation hasn't "surpass[ed] and contradict[ed] that which is in the Bible." Theonly peple who insis otherwise are those who misinterpret the Bible to say things it really doesn't say. Which highlights my point here.
ave maria Posted July 19, 2005 Posted July 19, 2005 Modern revelation hasn't "surpass[ed] and contradict[ed] that which is in the Bible." Do you believe it is the LDS position that it can? Or that it would be false revelation if it either surpassed or contradicted Biblical scripture?
Hemidakota Posted July 19, 2005 Posted July 19, 2005 Alpha and Omega is in all of us - matter is eternal as intelligence is eternal. This material is beyond GOD HIMSELF. We all are eternal in a sense but then, Jesus the Christ is the 'Only Begotten of the FATHER' and FirstBorn of the Spirits. We just fallin somewhere there after....contridiction comes in when personal perception becomes the gospel overtime vice what the prophets or apostles wrote or spoke about.
ave maria Posted July 19, 2005 Posted July 19, 2005 Alpha and Omega is in all of us - matter is eternal as intelligence is eternal. This material is beyond GOD HIMSELF. We all are eternal in a sense but then, Jesus the Christ is the 'Only Begotten of the FATHER' and FirstBorn of the Spirits. We just fallin somewhere there after....contridiction comes in when personal perception becomes the gospel overtime vice what the prophets or apostles wrote or spoke about. Do you hold that belief to be (1) explicitly found in Biblical scripture, (2) supported by Biblical scripture, (3) a contradiction of Biblical scripture, or (4) the result of subsequent revelation not necessarily related to Biblical scripture?
Hemidakota Posted July 19, 2005 Posted July 19, 2005 Without a complete detail historical record called a Bible from the time of Adam, there are many precious truths that are missing. I simply don
Kevin Graham Posted July 19, 2005 Posted July 19, 2005 == Do you believe it is the LDS position that it can? We believe in progressive revelation. I suppose it is possible that new revelation could be interpreted as a "contradiction" to some previously held tradition. But then again, logically speaking Jesus Christ flatly contradicted revelation of Moses."Eye for an eye" and "turn the other cheek." You don't get much more polar opposite than that.In any event this is beside the point. Mormon doctrine is not wedded to the idea that God was always God as he is now, and the Bible says nothing to "contradict" this.
Zakuska Posted July 19, 2005 Posted July 19, 2005 Not to mention 'curcumcision', 'Animal Sacrifices' change in 'Priesthood Authority' Read all about in the book of Hebrews. PS. Abstination of meats was done away with. So which was truly from God and which was it that the Prophet was making up?Prophets go against Scripture all the time Ave!
ave maria Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 Mormon doctrine is not wedded to the idea that God was always God as he is now, and the Bible says nothing to "contradict" this. Does the Bible, in your view, say anything to contradict the notion that He was (always God as He is now)?
Zakuska Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 No the Bible does not say that God was made of Stone so that he never changes. Just the opposite is true. Man was made in his shape and form and woman was the crowning jewel of his creation.
Kevin Graham Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 == Does the Bible, in your view, say anything to contradict the notion that He was (always God as He is now)? No.
ave maria Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 Prophets go against Scripture all the time Ave! If we assume that to be a given, would you agree with me that it doesn't matter what, if anything, is said in the Bible regarding the nature of God, if i(t is believed by some Latter-day Saints that) modern revelation can contradict or surpass it?
Zakuska Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 And that is exactly what we are presented with Ave.Can you explain the Data any other way? Why does God give one set of commands and then sends a Prophet/Apostle to tell the people he has changed his mind?
Kevin Graham Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 == If we assume that to be a given, would you agree with me that it doesn't matter what, if anything, is said in the Bible regarding the nature of God, if i(t is believed by some Latter-day Saints that) modern revelation can contradict or surpass it? The problem with this is the fact that the Bible very little about the "nature of God." So anything anyone proposes as revelation could be objected to based on, not the Bible itself, but rather a tradition that has relied on certain interpretations of the Bible. What we know from the Bible that is beyond dispute is that God is capable of being everywhere in "some sense." He is one with the other two members of the Trinity in "some sense."His "essence" includes spirit but this doesn't preclude corporeality. Christ is fully human throughout the eternities according to classical Christianity, which means he retains his flesh and bone body. What else can we say beyond dispute? Not much. In fact, the above might be disputed as well.
ave maria Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 And that is exactly what we are presented with Ave.Can you explain the Data any other way? Why does God give one set of commands and then sends a Prophet/Apostle to tell the people he has changed his mind? I take it, then, that you disagree with the following statement:Modern revelation hasn't "surpass[ed] and contradict[ed] that which is in the Bible."
ave maria Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 == If we assume that to be a given, would you agree with me that it doesn't matter what, if anything, is said in the Bible regarding the nature of God, if i(t is believed by some Latter-day Saints that) modern revelation can contradict or surpass it? The problem with this is the fact that the Bible very little about the "nature of God." So anything anyone proposes as revelation could be objected to based on, not the Bible itself, but rather a tradition that has relied on certain interpretations of the Bible. What we know from the Bible that is beyond dispute is that God is capable of being everywhere in "some sense." He is one with the other two members of the Trinity in "some sense."His "essence" includes spirit but this doesn't preclude corporeality. Christ is fully human throughout the eternities according to classical Christianity, which means he retains his flesh and bone body. What else can we say beyond dispute? Not much. In fact, the above might be disputed as well. Yes. I would agree with most of what you said above, with the exception of the following:Christ is fully human throughout the eternities according to classical ChristianityBut in general, your point is well made and well taken, and I would agree.
Zakuska Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 Not in the least. But the actuall data sure smacks in the face of traditional religion.God is God he can give anyone any set of commands he wants.However... Num 23:19 says he cant but then Jonah says he can.Oh... Im so confused.... God must be a woman!
ave maria Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 Not in the least. But the actuall data sure smacks in the face of traditional religion.God is God he can give anyone any set of commands he wants.However... Num 23:19 says he cant but then Jonah says he can.Oh... Im so confused.... God must be a woman! So, you agree with this statement?Prophets go against Scripture all the time and this statement?Modern revelation hasn't "surpass[ed] and contradict[ed] that which is in the Bible.Is that correct?
Markk Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 Hi Kevin,But you ignore what it means to be in the "form" of God. It refers to what he looks like physically. Christ was glorified in the preexistence but gave up the glory to take on the form of a slave.Your wrong, it means much more than that, in the next verse it says the preincanante Christ ..."took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:" Thats more or less the "metamorphis", from one nature to the next, He changed, by reputaion and took on a additional nature and "came in the likness of man. Your not dealing with the verse when it says Christ was "Equal" with Theois, He had the form of Theois and was equal to Theois. This is the Humility that Paul is making a example of that God would "empty" Himself and come in the likenss of man and suffer for us...Equal Kevin, Equal here means equal in quality or quanity...it means the same The jews in John 5:18 wanted to stone Jesus...Why..."Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him , because he not only had broken the sabbath , but said also that God was his Father , making himself equal with God . " Equal, the same word in the Greek. This speaks of being and nature.There is what you said: "As far as the JW"S they are right in line with you, read the NWT an dtell me what they say. They deny the deity of Christ and change the NWT to say so in every instance, they like you ( "It not only does not say he is God") do not believe Jesus is God, but a god...little "g". Read Col. 2:9, I'll use the NRSV for your sake..."2:9There you have it. You're wrong. Was this deception or ignorance? I hope the latter.And there is no such thing as a "little g" God. Elohim are elohim, period. There is no qualification in "nature" only in authority. There are no capitalizations in Hebrew.Did you read what I said and what Juliann said to me? who's being deceptiive and I don't think you even read the posts. The Jehovah witnesses believe Jesus is a little "god", read John 1:1 of the NWT (their bible), I never said the LDS church does not deny the deity of Christ, I said Julianns comment to me "It not only does not say he is God", about Phil. 2 fits more with JW theology. I never said anything in that context about the LDS church, you are not being honest. Go back and read OUR (Julianns) posts before you make such accusations. == LDS teach He is one of many gods.Bingo, I agree with that, polytheism.LDS teach there are many gods just as the early Christians/Jews understood the concept. Multiple entities that are called "god" but one true Godhead, or more to the point, one "authority." Christianity has blown this doctrine under the rug by calling these entities "angels." But the Ancient Jews used the word elohim which means, literally "gods." We believe in ONE GOD in the same sense as the Bible; there is one "throne." Christ shares the authority with the Father, and he shares his throne. The Bible says that we will sit on his throne as well. But this doesn't mean we emerge with the essence of God in some convoluted Trinitarian sense.That is a loaded answer and so wrong, show me where it says in the Bible where there is "one true Godhead", I can show you where it says there is one true God, and that there is only One God and that we are to worship only one God, and ther ewas no gods formed nor after the God of the bible, I can clearly show you where the bible teaches all other gods are just idols. I can clearly show how the bible instructes wayward Israel that there is just one god and they are to worship only one God because all other gods are idols and are not real. I disagre e that the LDS faith believes in one god as the bible teaches, i believe they are confused as to the nature of God is as this thread reveals.You tell me Kevin in getting back to the thread, did the LDS leadership, prophet and apostles teach that God was once a man, a exalted man, like us who had to go through the laws of eternal progression to become God by nature?There is no reason to believe Phil 2:6 refers to equality in the Trinitarian sense. It clearly says Christ took the form of God again. This refers to his glory. His visual appearance. The "nature" rendering is a theologiclly driven apologetic forwarded by classical trinitarians.There is every reason to believe Phil. 2: 1-9 teaches that god came in the flesh for us, this is the true christmas story in a great sense, that God would humble Himself so much to take on willfully the nature of man, being born of the virgin birth and come with us. that's why Matthew says "emmanual...God with us", what do you think that means? or John 1:1,14, "God came and tabranacled (pitched His tent) with us", or Col 2:9 " He (Christ) is all the fulness of deity in bodily form? Or Timothy when Paul says "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh". Equal means Equal, the preincarnate Christ was equal with the Father in every way.MarkJohn 1;12
Kevin Graham Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 == Your wrong, it means much more than that, in the next verse it says the preincanante Christ ..."took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:" Thats more or less the "metamorphis", from one nature to the next, Excuse me, but "nature" is not in the text. You just threw that in there to support your baseless claim that the text must be saying "much more" than it really does. Metamorphis refers to physical appearance, not "nature." We already know that God and men are the same species, "offspring." (Acts 17:28).== Your not dealing with the verse when it says Christ was "Equal" with Theois, He had the form of Theois and was equal to Theois. It is irrelevant to my point. This doesn't change the fact that form means form, and in order for Christ to take on the "form of God", God must have a form to begin with.== This is the Humility that Paul is making a example of that God would "empty" Himself and come in the likenss of man and suffer for us...Equal Kevin, Equal here means equal in quality or quanity...Gee for someone who says he doesn't deny Mormons already believe this, you sure do like to keep reemphasizing the point. When are you going to deal with the "form" of God?== The jews in John 5:18 Why are you hopping around the NT? Stick with the context and you'll see that the "form" spoken of in 2:6 is referring to exactly what I said. The glorious body of God. Phil 3:21
juliann Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 Thats more or less the "metamorphis", from one nature to the next, He changed, by reputaion and took on a additional nature and "came in the likness of man. There is no discussion of "nature" in the Bible. You have added that. Your not dealing with the verse when it says Christ was "Equal" with Theois, He had the form of Theois and was equal to Theois. You are adding that to the Bible, as well. You need to deal with the actual words and stop adding your own. theos means "god", nothing more. It does not matter if you are talking about Zeus or the Father, it is the same word. I was rather sloppy with this pericope myself. I'll get back to it later today and be more thorough and careful.There is every reason to believe Phil. 2: 1-9 teaches that god came in the flesh for us, And this is where you start playing word games with "god". You begin by talking about Jesus as a distinct person and then turn to your other meaning of "god".
Zakuska Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 So, you agree with this statement?Prophets go against Scripture all the time Well... since I was the one who gave the statement I would assume that yes I do indeed agree with it.One example: Nathan speaks FOR the Lord and then has to recant.2 Sam. 7Apparently verse 3 is not scripture because its Nathans own opinion of David.and this statement?Modern revelation hasn't "surpass[ed] and contradict[ed] that which is in the Bible.Is that correct?Yes I also agree with Kevin on this.When All facts are known there is no contradiction.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.