Was God once a man?

[Kevin Graham]

== Can someone be equal with Deity, and in the form of Deity, and not be Deity?

Questions like these imply that I deny the deity of Christ. You said you understand that I accept that he is God, but you keep asking these types of question anyway. What gives?

== And John 5:18 is in context of this conversation in that it clearly shows that the Jews of that day knew what Equality with God meant. .."but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. " (KJ)

And I'm supposed to disagree with this..... because?

== What about John 1:1,14 when it says clearly that Jesus was with God and was God in the begining, and THEN came here to earth?

What about it?

== So you can't have it both ways, are you going to say that in John 1:1, Jesus was God and with God, then in Phil. He was less than God ?

You need to sharpen your comprehension.

== Emmanual is a Name of Jesus, by both Old and New testament, which means God with us, it doesn't mean angel of the LORD with us, it says God with us.

I never said Immanuel means angel of the Lord.... sigh.

== Tim 3:16 in any decent Bible notes that "God" is not in all the MSS, but it is in the received text and doesn't change the context one bit. Who ..."was manifest in the flesh as Paul wrote in Timothy? we are back to John 1:14...God! That's a old argument that just doesn't fly.

Give me a break. The reason it doesn't appear in the most respected translations is because it is uiversally recognized in scholarship as a late Trinitarian alteration. The earliest manuscripts do not contain it. Were you ignorant of this or were you just being coy? I hope the former. In any event, this further proves the Trinity concept couldn't be found in the Bible as it was. The Church needed to add it into the Bible. Same thing for 1 John 5:7-8. A clear trinitarian alteration.

== So, for the record, do you believe God was a exalted man as the past leaders taught,

For the record, I believe God is a man.

== or do you believe that God was a man only in the context that he was first God then man, then God again as many LDS "scholars" teach nowadays?

Scholars like whom?

== BTW, that is a argument of silence

What is?

== does the BOM contradict that Jesus was called Fred sometimes? geez And I believe the bible would contradict that statment in that God is unchanging.

You're making no sense to me.

== Your post was long and if I missed something that is erelavant let me know and I will reply.

I couldn't even tell if you were responding to me or soemone else.

[Markk]

Hi Kevin,

Mark

John 1:12

[Markk]

Hi Juliann,

NLT - Phl 2:6 - Though he was God, he did not demand and cling to his rights as God.

New Living Translation

[alpha]

Alpha says,

== Eternal means there is no beginning and no end... God has always been and forever will be.

In English maybe, but not in Hebrew, which is language of the Old Testament. Again, reasserting a false statement over and over is pointless; unless of course you just like to hear yourself talk. Here is how Brown-Driver-Briggs defines "olam"

1) long duration, antiquity, futurity, for ever, ever, everlasting, evermore, perpetual, continuous existence,old, ancient, world

1a) ancient time, long time (of past)

1b) (of future)

1b1) for ever, always

1b2) continuous existence, perpetual

1b3) everlasting, indefinite or unending future, eternity

The only end of the spectrum that applies to infinite is the future end, never the past! The Hebrews had no concept of an infinite past, even when thinking of God's old age.

1a) ancient time, long time (of past)

antiquity,

continuous existence,

old

Kevin,

How could you say that the Hebrews had not these concepts?...your definitions say different. Why would we moderners assume they didn't understand what they were talking about?

You can't say for certain :

The only end of the spectrum that applies to infinite is the future end, never the past! The Hebrews had no concept of an infinite past, even when thinking of God's old age.

I am sure they had a more understanding of their God, then we do.

[Kevin Graham]

== Kevin, How could you say that the Hebrews had not these concepts?...your definitions say different.

No they don't. Read them again.

If it helps you any, the definitions 1. and 1a refer to past and the 1b's refer to future. Let's see how olam is used in refers to things that are "olam."

Gen 17:19 I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting[olam] covenant, and with his seed after him.

Gen 9:16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting[olam] covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.

What happened to the "everlasting" covenant of circumcision? Not so "everlasting" after all huh?

Gen 49:26 The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting[olam] hills

Deut 33:15 And for the chief things of the ancient (qedem) mountains, and for the precious things of the lasting(olam) hills

Are the hills "eternally" existent as hills? I thought they were created.

== Why would we moderners assume they didn't understand what they were talking about?

They did know what they were talking about. The problem lies within the moderners trying to understand what the ancients were talking about.

== You can't say for certain : The only end of the spectrum that applies to infinite is the future end, never the past!

I didn't have to. Brown-Driver-Briggs said it for me.

== The Hebrews had no concept of an infinite past, even when thinking of God's old age.

This is true.

== I am sure they had a more understanding of their God, then we do.

So am I, but it remains that they did not understand God to "always have existed as God."

[ave maria]

== Can someone be equal with Deity, and in the form of Deity, and not be Deity?

Questions like these imply that I deny the deity of Christ. You said you understand that I accept that he is God, but you keep asking these types of question anyway.

Accept that He is "a God," or accept that He is "God?"

Accept that He has always been "a God" or "God," or that He became "a God" or "God?"

I for one would appreciate a clarification.

[Hemidakota]

Christ was not always LORD God in the beginning

GOD was not always GOD in the beginning.

But then, neither was this universe or atom was in the beginning.

[ave maria]

Christ was not always LORD God in the beginning

GOD was not always GOD in the beginning.

But then, neither was this universe or atom was in the beginning.

Would you care to cite references to support that?

Or are you simply stating that as personal belief, without evidentiary support?

[flavo]

I was wondering how those who do not understand the concept of God having become a glorified being explain the scripture in John 8:38 & 5:19.

[Hemidakota]

D&C 88, 93, 130

Joseph Smith Story

JST Genesis 2, 7, 11

2Nephi 2 and so on....

Inert matter is eternal

The last statement I quoted is found in Ezekiel....

Flavo: John8:38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.

John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

[flavo]

The point I am tryng to mak is that Christ was only doing what he himself had witnessed the father do. I do many things just as I have seen my father and so did Christ. The work that the Savior did was what he had witnessed the Father do.

[juliann]

I was wondering how those who do not understand the concept of God having become a glorified being explain the scripture in John 8:38 & 5:19.

They don't explain anything. They reword and give us their own beliefs as if it was scripture. If their church says it....it counts and we have to pay attention. Our church doctrine doesn't count and if we say it...it is personal opinion.

[flavo]

It's amazing the amount of misunderstanding that comes from lack of personal revelation.

[juliann]

The point I am tryng to mak is that Christ was only doing what he himself had witnessed the father do. I do many things just as I have seen my father and so did Christ. The work that the Savior did was what he had witnessed the Father do.

That verse has been ripped out of an awful lot of Bibles. Some people's Bible's are down to about 30 pages by now.

[flavo]

Preach on brother I live in the South, and i can tell you, some scriptures just put people in a tissy.

[ave maria]

It's amazing the amount of misunderstanding that comes from lack of personal revelation.

That might not seem like an arrogant statement to you, but to the outside observer, it's nothing but.

Just because someone has told you that Latter-day Saints have cornered the market on 'personal revelation' does not make it true.

Even Latter-day Saints would do well to stop listening to propaganda, and pay more attention to truth, wherever it is found.

I can assure you that I was not 'shut off' in any sense of the word from 'personal revelation' when I converted to Catholicism--to the contrary, in fact. For me personally, it was like a great big window opening up and letting in warm sunlight.

Your experience might vary.

[Markk]

Hi Juliann,

You Wrote..."Morphe does not mean more than "form, outward appearance, shape". There is nothing whatsoever in this Greek work that can carry the theological load being placed on it.

What does a servant look like?

Mark

John 1:12

[alpha]

== Kevin, How could you say that the Hebrews had not these concepts?...your definitions say different.

No they don't. Read them again.

If it helps you any, the definitions 1. and 1a refer to past and the 1b's refer to future. Let's see how olam is used in refers to things that are "olam."

Gen 17:19 I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting[olam] covenant, and with his seed after him.

Gen 9:16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting[olam] covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.

What happened to the "everlasting" covenant of circumcision? Not so "everlasting" after all huh?

Gen 49:26 The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting[olam] hills

Deut 33:15 And for the chief things of the ancient (qedem) mountains, and for the precious things of the lasting(olam) hills

Are the hills "eternally" existent as hills? I thought they were created.

== Why would we moderners assume they didn't understand what they were talking about?

They did know what they were talking about. The problem lies within the moderners trying to understand what the ancients were talking about.

== You can't say for certain : The only end of the spectrum that applies to infinite is the future end, never the past!

I didn't have to. Brown-Driver-Briggs said it for me.

== The Hebrews had no concept of an infinite past, even when thinking of God's old age.

This is true.

== I am sure they had a more understanding of their God, then we do.

So am I, but it remains that they did not understand God to "always have existed as God."

OK

Not sure if I totally agree. Due to lack of my knowledge on the verbage...But you do have good points.

So do you think that we who think that God has always existed are serving a false or non-existent God or being?

Does an experience override logic or vice versa?

Why is it that LDS intrepret the bible only as it is presented in their view...otherwise, we others are "doing other things with scripture...even when it is pretty evident that no interpretation is necessary?

Thanks

Alpha

P.S. Circumcision of the flesh ( Genesis 17:10-14)was done away with, but the covenant sign still exists today...(Spiritual circumcision of the heart)

Galations 3:1-29 & Galations 3:29 & Romans 4:3-5, & Colossians 2:11-12

Gentiles become Abraham's heirs...according to the promise

Faith in Jesus Christ

Water baptism as a sign of entering the New Covenant...

[juliann]

You Wrote..."Morphe does not mean more than "form, outward appearance, shape". There is nothing whatsoever in this Greek work that can carry the theological load being placed on it.

What does a servant look like?

Slave is a more literal translation. He took on the appearance of a slave. Does that really need explaining?

[alpha]

I was wondering how those who do not understand the concept of God having become a glorified being explain the scripture in John 8:38 & 5:19.

Flavo..

Seems you are just reading "other things" into those verses...I don't see how you can relate your points to those verses without adding pieces to make them fit.

God did have a glorified body...When Jesus Christ was ressurrected...there you have Him. We oneness don't deny this...We know that God has a resurrected body and he is on the throne today...Jesus Christ, as King of Kings...and will remain until the holy Ghost ministers until the time of the Gentiles is completed.

Alpha

[juliann]

So do you think that we who think that God has always existed are serving a false or non-existent God or being?

I think you would have a really hard time finding one Mormon who would get into that "false God" nonsense. There is but one God...no matter what religion you are.

Why is it that LDS intrepret the bible only as it is presented in their view...otherwise, we others are "doing other things with scripture...even when it is pretty evident that no interpretation is necessary? 

I think that you will find almost all of us saying that the Bible can be interpreted in a variety of ways. That should be self-evident. If you are going to get into interpretation contests you really do have to go back to the Greek and use scholarship to support your views. I have always said that all religions create a canon within a canon...we use some verses, not others...and emphasize some over others. That is why there are so many sects and denominations all claiming to be "Bible based".

Mormons have always said that we don't rely on the Bible for everything. What I don't understand is why someone would insist that they do when it is so obvious that they do not. It is more productive to just admit it and move on.

[Markk]

Hi Juliann,

I didn't know Jesus was a slave, and how did Jesus look like a slave? If Morph means in context outward appearance only, then how does Jesus look like a slave? Just what does a slave look like?

Remember you said ..."Morphe does not mean more than "form, outward appearance, shape". There is nothing whatsoever in this Greek work that can carry the theological load being placed on it."

Mark

John 1;12

[Kevin Graham]

== I didn't know Jesus was a slave, and how did Jesus look like a slave? If Morph means in context outward appearance only, then how does Jesus look like a slave? Just what does a slave look like?

Uh, well Christ had the living snot beat out of him, was stripped naked and hung on a cross for target practice. I doubt too many slaves had it that bad, but a slave would be the closest thing if you were trying to contrast a perfect glorified form to that of a flithy, bloody and beaten body.

[Markk]

Hi Kevin,

That does not make any sense at all.

Mark

john 1;12

[flavo]

I was wondering how those who do not understand the concept of God having become a glorified being explain the scripture in John 8:38 & 5:19.

Flavo..

Seems you are just reading "other things" into those verses...I don't see how you can relate your points to those verses without adding pieces to make them fit.

God did have a glorified body...When Jesus Christ was ressurrected...there you have Him. We oneness don't deny this...We know that God has a resurrected body and he is on the throne today...Jesus Christ, as King of Kings...and will remain until the holy Ghost ministers until the time of the Gentiles is completed.

Alpha

What was I reading into? The Savior said he did nothing but what he saw the Father do. Can you explain to me what was it that the Savior saw his Father do?