xanmad33
-
Posts
250 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by xanmad33
-
-
Then how is it that human intellect is justified in saying God does not have a body of flesh and bone? The Bible does not say so. The whole notion rests on human logic alone. There is in fact verses that say He has a body of flesh and bone. They have already been noted.
And they have been refuted.
Here it is further clarified; taken from "the oneness of God":
In other words, the Bible describes infinite God in finite, human terms in order that we may better comprehend Him. For example, the heart of God denotes His intellect and His emotions, not a blood-pumping organ (Genesis 6:6; 8:21). When God said heaven was His throne and earth was His footstool, He described His omnipresence, not a pair of literal feet propped up on the globe (Isaiah 66:1). When God said His right hand spanned the heavens, He described His great power and not a large hand stretching through the atmosphere (Isaiah 48:13). "The eyes of the LORD are in every place" does not mean that God has physical eyes in every location but indicates His omnipresence and omniscience (Proverbs 15:3). When Jesus cast devils out by the finger of God, He did not pull down a giant finger from heaven, but He exercised the power of God (Luke 11:20). The blast of God's nostrils was not literal particles emitted by giant heavenly nostrils, but the strong east wind sent by God to part the Red Sea (Exodus 15:8; 14:21). In fact, literal interpretation of all the visions and physical descriptions of God would lead to the belief that God has wings (Psalm 91:4). In short, we believe God as a Spirit does not have a body unless He chooses to manifest Himself in a bodily form, which He did in the person of Jesus Christ. (See Chapter 4 - JESUS IS GOD.)
Some say that in the Old Testament God had a spirit body visible to other spirit beings such as angels. They raise this hypothesis because human spirits seem to have a recognizable form visible to other spirits (Luke 16:22-31) and because some passages indicate the angels and Satan could see a visible manifestation of God in the Old Testament (I Kings 22:19-22; Job 1:6). However, God did not need a spirit body to do this because He could have manifested Himself at various times to other spirits just as He did to man. One key verse of Scripture implies that ordinarily God is not visible even to spirit beings unless He chooses to manifest Himself in some way: "God was manifest in the flesh… seen of angels" (I Timothy 3:16). At the least, if God did have some type of spirit body He certainly was not confined to it like other spirit beings are confined to their bodies; for then He would not be truly omnipresent. For example, God's omnipresence means He could have appeared simultaneously to men on earth and to angels in heaven. Also, we must realize that in New Testament times God has chosen to reveal Himself fully through Jesus Christ (Colossians 2:9). There is no possibility of separating God and Jesus, and there is no God visible outside of Jesus. "
You are avoiding the quesiton. Can you demonstrate that Joseph Smith's interpretation was wrong? Did Jesus do things that He did NOT see the Father do? Did Jesus alone suffer death and resurrection without seeing the Father do it?
I believe I have answered you in many posts already, it seems to me this argument is picking and chosing what fits and ignoring the rest..but I digress....
How about a question.. In Alma 11:26-29 Amulek tells Zeezrom that there is only one "true and living God." If that is true, which of the three Gods in the Mormon godhead is not true and/or living?
Also how about looking at the very definition of "OMNIPOTENCE" :
The word "omni" means "all" and "potent" means "powerful." If two or more beings had the ability to have "all" power, the different powers would cancel each other out and therefore render the word meaningless.
Exactly, then why do you insist that God has no body of flesh and bone?
Just because he choses to manifest himself in different ways like a bush, or a mountain or Jesus even, does not in ANY was negate his omnipresence.
Then why do the Mormons not get to believe that?
That is not what Mormons believe.
Mormons believe that there are 3 DISTINCT PERSONAGES that make up the godhead.
I have CLEARLY outlined our differing doctrines on that in MANY ways in previous posts.
"Heavenly Father. Also referred to as God the Father or Elohim, a created being who was originally a mortal man and became God at a certain point in time (The Gospel Through the Ages, p. 104). God is the offspring of another god who was also once a man, ad infinitum (The Seer, p. 132). Heavenly Father is but one of many gods. "
It seems easy enough for me. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one God. It is the unscriptural embelishment of man-made logic that gets confusing.
Instead of making these accusations, why dont you prove it scripturally?
And you've already said much. But if it is a sin to accept a revelation from God not found in the Bible, why is it proper to accept the unbiblical notion that God has no physical body?
-a-train
Give me the scriptures that say that God has a body of flesh and bone in heaven
-
Those wonderful Israelites, bless their hearts. They just loved worshiping idols and making graven images as we read very often throughout the Old Testament. Verse 9 makes that very clear. No other god or graven image or idol ever had any power. They were non existent except in the vain hearts of the people of Israel. Hence the LORD saying there was no other God.
Isaiah 44:6
This is what the LORD says—
Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty:
I am the first and I am the last;
apart from me there is no God.
Skalen, if you believe there is another god apart from Jehovah, why would God not aknowledge that here? This is an absolute statement.
And of course Jesus (Jehovah) knew His Father. He prayed to Him often in the New Testament and with Him appeared before Steffen and much later to Joseph Smith. Of course this is where we differ.
The Bible defines prayer as flesh praying to deity ie: the flesh part of Jesus' humanity was praying to the divine that is in him and also in Heaven because it is onipresent
-
Back to the Nature of God for a sec... I have another quest... since you love Isaiah
Isaiah 44:6,8 says that there is no God beside the God of the Bible and that this God does not know of any other gods.
Consider what that says...If that is Jesus (Jehovah) speaking—as attested to by Mormon Apostle Bruce McConkie (The Promised Messiah, p.312)—does that mean Jesus does not know His own Father? I don't understand that?
-
Thanks Skalen, it makes sense... I disagree with the Bible part but I can see your beliefs
-
Skalen, I'm trying to make sense here if you can enlighten me...
Scripture's are the words from prophets correct?
So by Mormon definition, scriptures are the written words of God -as given through the prophets..isn't it illogical to try to put one above the other?
-
What Jesus actually said was that he was the I AM of the Old Testament. The I AM of the Old Testament, the God of the Old Testament was referred to by the name of Yahweh or Jehovah. This is in line with Latter-day Saint doctrine which teaches that Jehovah/Yahweh was the pre-existance name of Jesus. He only took on the name of Jesus when he was born in Bethlehem. When the New Testament tells us that nothing was made except things that were made by Jesus Christ it is nit contradicting the Old Testament which says all things were made by Jehovah because Jesus is the same person as Jehovah. Jehovah was not Heavenly Father.
I think this is where the confusion arises about Jesus being the same person as Heavenly Father.
The Bible does not support this.
Found this artice for you:
The belief that God the Father is called Elohim and Jesus is called Jehovah does not agree with what the Bible says. In actuality, in Hebrew the word for "God" is the word "elohim." Likewise, the word for the name of God (elohim) is "Jehovah." In the Bible, when the word "Jehovah" appears in the Hebrew text, it is rendered as LORD (all caps) in the English text. Also, the Hebrew word "elohim" is translated as "God."
Please consider the following verses:
"Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me" (Isaiah 43:10-11).
This verse is important because if you read what it is saying, it states that Jehovah (Lord) is stating that there will be no God (elohim) formed after him. . In other words, this verse is stating that the LORD (Jehovah), is elohim.
Let's look at two more verses.
"Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God" (Isaiah 44:6).
In this verse, LORD is Jehovah in the Hebrew. Jehovah is saying there is no God (elohim) besides him.
"Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any" (Isaiah 44:8).
The context of this verse is that Jehovah (LORD) is speaking. He states here that there is no God (elohim) besides him. He is stating that he does not know of any other elohim (God) besides himself.
My point is that the name of God (elohim) is Jehovah (LORD) and that the LORD is stating that he alone is God. In other words, Jehovah is stating that he alone is elohim. Therefore, the idea that God "the Father" is called "elohim" and that the "son" is called "Jehovah" is erroneous.
In actuality, the name of God is Jehovah.
Remember, in Hebrew text LORD equals Jehovah. God equals elohim.
"Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him" (Deut. 4:35).
"That all the people of the earth may know that the LORD is God, and that there is none else" (1 Kings 8:60).
"Know ye that the LORD he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves;" (Psalm 100:2).
"And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The LORD is my God" (Zech. 13:9).
-
I believe a false God is something you seek out intentionally or is more tangible like a football player or money etc
-Charley
I persoanlly believe the Bible speaks the way it does about God and as often as it does for a purpose. It is vital to understand the God you worship. (At least Biblically it is)
but i also agree with you your statement and I would add that sometimes we seek out other "gods" *unintentionally* because we have been blinded by lies..
-
Your olive branch is accepted, and one offered in return.
Perhaps when we have such different beliefs it may seem to each other than we are being antagonistic when neither intend that.
I have been studying Jeremiah recently which has been quite enlightening.
thanks willow :)
-
See I only actually believe there is one God who answers all sincere prayers no matter what you call Him/Her/Them
-Charley
This is perhaps where our strongest difference lies...
-
What are the conflicting statements? Short and sweet.
I guess I believe that God is called by different names and understood so differently by the people of the world. But that doesn't stop me from believing that God is over all and understands these differences and that He receives the prayers of the world.
I know you are trying to understand how we see God. And it appears that you cannot reconcile our belief with yours. But what stops you from this kind of concession? If I pray and you pray? Doesn't God hear us both? Or does He only hear certain people who wear certain labels? And does he only listen if the petitioner understands him perfectly? If that is so, then wouldn't all Christianity be in trouble, considering God is seen as something man can't comprehend? Not to mention the rest of the planet.
It depend on who you are praying to. I have clarified that argument in posts past.
It's not about labels, it's about belief
For "whosovever believes" shall have everlasting life, but then the Bible also makes clear who you are to believe in.
this thread was to look at that aspect.
-
I am not insinuating anything.
You asked the question.
I merely answered your question but you seem to have taken offense at that.
If you are going to ask a question and then take offence because I answer it then perhaps that is my queue to leave this thread and not attempt to answer any more of your questions. Your attitude towards me is quite hurtful.
I will leave it to others to respond to your questions from now on.
no, girl, I am not offended
PEACE! and Im just trying to be clear about my motives that have so often come into question here, that's all
My olive brach of peace and friendship is extended to you <3
-
I'm sorry, I did actually overlook that because I thought you were referring to my earlier posts. I suppose I do come across as defensive of what I believe and defensive of the church I belong to when it seems to be misrepresented, Your posts have come across to me as critical of our beliefs, especially when you say that we pray to a false God. That does seem to be accusatory of sincere and genuine people who believe and trust in the true God of the Bible and pray to him devoutly, who believe in the saving grace of Jesus Christ and are deeply grateful for his atoning sacrifice. It hurts us to be told that we worship a false God and that we are not Christians. It does feel like an attack on our beliefs. Would you be hurt and feel your beliefs were being attacked if I told you you prayed to a false God?
That is an avenue I have explored here and is completely relevant of a question. I never said unequivically you do or you don't.....I simply asked a few questions that are a logical argument if the Bible is true.
No, but you asked if that was what we believed would happen to you if you did not join the LDS church.
Yes, I did ask that, and I was completely interested in the answer. It was not a leading question if that's what you are insinuating.
I am merely letting you know that we don't believe that. In fact we don't do the whole "damned to hell" thing which a lot of other churches seem to do. What we believe is in different degrees of glory. To those who believe in and aim for the Celestial Kingdom then that glory could be theirs. For those who do not believe in it and do not seek for it but only believe in and seek for Terrestrial Glory than that will be their reward. They may be delighted and happy with that reward. They may not want more. Not all LDS will achieve the highest glory, but we aim for it, although acknowledging our shortcomings and our need for repentance and the atonement of Jesus Christ.
I never said you said otherwise
-
Xan,
I am trying to be a humble observer of this conversation but....
I just wanted to jump in here and ask you if there was any possibility that you could believe that we pray to the same God, even though we may understand Him differently?
Well Misshalfway, I started this thread to get that answer myself
I am trying to understand who your God is....There have been a few conflicting statements, and I'm just not all the way sure yet, but that's my personaly thoughts, and thats one reason I'm here :)
-
I have never claimed my faith to perfect just the best :) My point is those people that did those things did it interpreting the Bible their way, reading the same verses you did, often very learned good men doing their best, I am not sure but I can't think of any shameful episode in my faith that came from misinterpretation of scripture (but I could be wrong lol)
I think you interpret hostility in posts which is really just a lack of understanding, its no difference than your posts to me where you were amazed and frustrated because I didn't think the way you did and couldn't see it, I was not offended because I have encountered the Christian reaction to me before,
Elgama, I don't feel hostility in those posts
There have been a couple though that yes, I have felt very real hosility from
dealing with Mormons is new to you and we truly are a peculiar people (often stark raving bonkers as well lol) - I personally do not understand how you can claim Christians do not interpret the Godhead scriptures differently
I never claimed that Christians don't interpret the godhead differently, my claim was that Christianity worships one God.
... I find it very interesting that the Oxford Companion to the Bible does not even cover the trinity, it does however discuss the different names of God and is pretty comprehensive . I can name about 3 different forms of the trinity off the top of my head, there is the Barthian Model, the Augustian Model, Modalism. There are distinctions between Roman Catholic, Anglican and Orthodox churches - then there are several non trinitarian (they are called Unitarian but that has taken on a new form) that looking at the buildings are at least 150 years older than the LDS church. And even more Christians that feel it isn't all important they all got their teachings from the Bible.
Over the ten years searching for my baptism I visited and seriously investigated over 31 Christian Churches all I got was confused and different answers all coming from the Bible. I think the whole of 1 Corinthians 14 is coming to mind and the temptation to quote it is very difficult but the works of Paul do not gel with the idea of the whole of Christianity being one in Faith and one in baptism etc I do not see the body of Christ working together,
-Charley
I cannot speak for every "Christian", it's a pretty loose term these days. Just as Momon is... Aren't there more than 100 different organizations that lay claim to being part of the Latter Day Saint movement?
-
1 Corinthians 15 touches upon it as I previously mentioned and expounded upon. When we die we dwell in paradise (thief on the cross) or prison (where inhabitants from the flood also went) until we all resurrect to be judged and rewarded with a glory of salvation. This is our doctrine.
By the way, those who do accept the gospel in the postmortal world still need to be baptized, so we perform baptism on their behalf. "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" 1 Cor 15:29. This is also our doctrine.
The question was regarding infant baptism Skalen, and that it's not specifically addressed in scriputre
but thank you! and regarding that verse...we can start a whole other thread about that too
-
I'm sorry if you feel that I am accusing you of attacking us. Where have I actually said that? You do disagree with the LDS point of view and I am sure that you would be the first to agree that you do. However, I have said that although I do not agree with what you believe I would defend your right to those beliefs.
That is a little hurtful to other people who have patiently answered your questions when you have attacked their beliefs.
YOUR ACCUSATION IS ABOVE>>>>
No-one has told you that you are going to Hell either. It just isn't in the LDS doctrine.
I never said they did did I?
Yes, we share that common ground.The problem here is that we do not believe that God as described in The Book of Mormon, or Jesus as described in the Book of Mormon are any different to God and Jesus as described in the Bible. However, they are very different to the God and Jesus or God/Jesus/Holy Ghost Trinity as put forward by other churches and which we do not see as Biblical.
This is actually where we differ - you believe we preach a different Jesus to the one in the Bible. We believe trinitarians preach a different Jesus to the one in the Bible.
I agree with you that it's difficult for us with our limited understanding to fully grasp all the things the Bible tries to teach us. I believe this is why Jesus taught in parables to try to make things easier to understand.
Hence the REASON for this thread in the FIRST place.
I'm only confused about your beliefs. I'm not at all confused about mine. To me the Gospel appears very plain and simple and easy to understand. It's just all this three in one and one in three and the same person being different people and able to pray to himself and have different opinions to himself which doesn't seem to make sense to me, but I don't actually believe that is what the Bible tells us. What I see in the Bible is three separate people with three different personalities, all united in one purpose as the Godhead (a bit like the President, Vice President and Chairman of a company). It just baffles me that other churches make it so complicated and I don't understand why they do that. It's not actually a Bible verse that I don't understand.
Matthew 26:39 is where Jesus prays to his father and asks that the cup could pass from him - but goes on to say 'not my will but thine'
Luke 23:34 is where he asks his Father to forgive those who abuse him.
I did try in your previous thread to answer all the points of scripture which you quoted from my own LDS viewpoint but it did take me an awful long time to look them all up and read them all in context. I have tried not to be dismissive of what you believe but to look into it and to put forward what I believe and why.
Nothing that anyone else could tell me could change what I believe about the nature of God because I had already come to that understanding before I'd ever even heard of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The church doctrine merely confirmed what I had already believed. It really just puzzles me how anyone can read the Bible and not see three separate beings.
Did you come to the belief in the Trinity from reading the Bible or from being taught it by your church?
Never tried to change your mind, just tried to read all scripture quoted in context with the full weight of the entire scripture.
And as you said you are confused by my beliefs, I also am confused by yours...
Yet another reason for this discussion
-
I think this is a good question Xan my God answers your prayers but why does yours not answer mine? In fact its a huge one? One of the biggest things that drew me to being LDS was my questions surrounding what happened to people who died unbaptised- for much of its history Christianity taught people who were not christened went straight to hell - your faith offered parents of babies who died early no comfort they wouldn't even buried an unchristened baby in consecrated ground, I have excavated a burial ground near a church for those that could not be buried in consecrated graves it was heart wrenching to realise in amongst the murderers and witches were tiny babies. What do you think happened to people who did not hear the gospel? I just don't understand how you can claim Christianity as it stands offers one baptism?
Knowledge of these things is essential for knowing the nature of God because I need to know if I want the salvation He offers? and if I can truly trust and love Him
-Charley
God is not responsible for what people do in his name. A look at your own church's history should show you that.
Regarding eternal fate, I don't know, nobody does. All I can say is that I serve a loving, Just, merciful, righteous God and all his judgements are pure.
-
Can you please tell me where Jesus actually said this because I'm not familiar with it.
Its actually paul speaking sorry for the mix up, Colossians 2:9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,
-
That is a little hurtful to other people who have patiently answered your questions when you have attacked their beliefs.
I am sorry if that hurt you, I was up late last night and I was trying to show Skalen that I appreciated the way he treats me in posts , that's all.
In the other thread, I felt very judged by you, Perhaps it was my own interpretation of your words, but I did not feel very good reading your accusations.
I thank you for your continued participation in threads, and I think you have been more and more loving, you are probably a very kind person, and I never meant to insinuate otherwise, but truthfully my post was to thank Skalen for trying to see the best in me through everything I write.
Even now you accuse me of attacking your beliefs, but am I?
I thought I was engaged in a discussion? Perhaps there have been a few posts where I have responded in more anger than love, but I have never told anyone here they are going to hell have I?
I could just as easily ask how do you know you are praying to the true God when you pray? If we address our prayers to 'God', 'Father in Heaven' (as Jesus taught us we should pray 'our Father who art in Heaven') then why should we doubt that the true God is the one who hears and answers us? Are you saying that the true God would not answer our prayers about the Book of Mormon if the Book of Mormon was not true but he would allow some false God to tell us that it isn't true? Surely that would be unbelievably cruel of him.
Well since we both believe the Bible to be true, then we both know He is the true God correct?
The God(s) in the LDS faith is described as being significantly different than the God we both have already aknowkledged is true in the Bible, so my questions have focused on that. And seeking to understand that better.
If you can grasp this for a second...IF your BOM, is in fact not of God, but perhaps a lie (remember I am saying IF, for arguments sake) then could it also be concludud that praying to the spirit in the book would also be praying to a decietful spirit not of God?
That was the point I was making earlier...IF.
I am familiar with people saying that God is a mystery beyond our comprehension and that if he wasn't then he wouldn't be God. That always used to confuse me because Jesus tells us we need to know God. How can we know him if he is impossible to comprehend? In one way it was easy for me to accept Mormon doctrine because it was the only Church which specifically taught the Godhead that I had come to recognise from reading the Bible. It puzzles me too how people can read the same thing I read and to them it seems to say something completely different.
In order to fully know God, we would have to know every particle and speck of his being.... We dont have the capacity in our brains to know the FULL knowledge of his glory.
The term "know" in the Bible is often used in an intimate way...RELATIONSHIP.
That's what it's ALLLLLLL about. He want to know us intimately and for us to know him intimately. He want a relationship with us.
If your still confused you can provide me with the verse in question and I will look it up more and try to help
-
for some reason my words turned pink in some places there, sorry!
-
I think you may have misunderstood what a-train is saying. I hope he will forgive me for butting in with my understanding of the post.
There are two possibilities put forth. The first takes the suggestion that Heavenly Father does not have a physical body - which was your claim,
My claim was he did not have a physical body until he manifested himself for us physically in Jesus. That does not negate his power and omnipresence though.
and then follows that with the Biblical teaching that Jesus does have a physical body. If those two statements were true then it would be impossible for Jesus and Heavenly Father to be the same being as you claim them to be because one being cannot both have a body and not have a body. Therefore if one part is true then the other part would be false.
Why? If we consider what all the scriputes tell us, then is's perfectly true, our minds just cannot grasp the full imact of that statement.
The second sentence states that if they were both the same being and if one manifestation of that being has a physical body then you could not argue that the other manifestation of the same being does not have a physical body because if they are both the same person then they would both have the same body. It would be like saying that I am my mother's daughter and my daughter's mother. So I am both a mother and a daughter and still the same person. So far it makes sense. But if you then went on to say that as a mother I have a living body but as a daughter I don't have a body that would be nonsense because if I am the same person as both daughter of my mother and mother of my daughter I cannot be two different things one with a body and one without.
I can see what your trying to say
(see im getting better huh?)But as my previous post pointed out...one does not negate the other.
God is not held to our human comprehention, it may not make sense to our minds, but nevertheless, it is what scripture says
Jesus said all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in him, but that does not negate Gods power and ominpresence.
Therefore you cannot have it both ways. Either one statement is true and the other is false or vice versa. Otherwise it doesn't make sense.
Why can't God have it both ways? I agree, it will never fully make sense to us your right about that. But we are provided all this information through scripture about God's nature because it matters. It matters a lot.
But LDS teaching is that both father and son have physical bodies and both are different seperate people and you can have both of those facts at the same time and both making sense.
Could you please explain to me the Trinitarian take on what was happening in the Garden of Gethsemane when Jesus prayed to his Father asking that the cup be taken from him and then submitted to his Father by saying "Nevertheless not my will but thine", and also when on the cross he prayed "Father forgive them for they know not what they do." Why didn't he just say "I forgive you because you don't know what you're doing."?
Prayer is defined in the Bible as flesh praying to deity
If you are born again, you speak to the Holy Spirit Who dwells "in" you. But in Jesus dwelt the fullness of the Godhead bodily," He was the manifestation of God in the physical Form of a man. Yet God is not a man but a Spirit.
as a man Jesus prayed, but as God, He heard and responded to those prayers.
-
Hi xanmad33. I'm new here and have been reading some of the discussions you've been having and I just wanted to put my tupence worth in. I'll say in advance that I'm not the type that spends much time on the internet and my account is set to not notify me of any responses, so pre-emptive apologies if I don't get back to you on any counter points you put to me.
I'm assuming that your purpose here is mutual understanding. In my view this is the most productive approach. I threw away my old view that everyone would agree with my own understanding once they knew my logic and explanation some time ago (yet every so often I still fall into that trap - hey I'm human).
With that in mind I have something to put to you (without any intention to offend); I feel you do not accept other peoples' logic for their interpretation of scripture. As in the quotes above, I felt that the other person in the discussion with you gave logical, reasonable and valid reasons as to why he believes a certain way. However, rather than say words to the effect of, "yes, I understand your point of view, but I personally think otherwise for these reasons: X, Y, Z", you seem to be totally dismissive. I think this is a problem.
Again, I don't want to offend you; this isn't a personal attack on you. I just feel that there is a more productive approach. In a way it seems, at times, that your stand point is one of, "prove to me that what you believe is true by using my interpretation of scripture!" If I misunderstand you, which is entirely possible, then I humbly apologise.
In relation to the above quotes, I can see where you are coming from; I think I understand your opinion on the subject and your logic and reason for believing so. Equally though, there are others who study the scriptures, use the best of their understanding and knowledge to comprehend it terms of context and prayerfully search for understanding (as I'm sure you do too), and yet come to conclusions, which, may in part, differ from your own. Does this mean they are wrong? Does this mean you are wrong? The truth is, it doesn't mean anything; it is merely a difference of opinion.
I personally believe the doctrine taught by the LDS Church concerning the nature of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. I believe so because through all of my experience, study and prayerful consideration I have come to this understanding; it doesn't make any sense at all to me any other way. Could I be mistaken about things? Of course. I believe there are some things that I am not mistaken about, but I try to keep an open mind so that I am prepared for any further understanding God my give me through the inspiration of his Spirit.
In closing, I'd like to say that I respect your opinion and would defend your right to have it, even if it differs from my own.
I appreciate the advice given to me in such a loving manner, thank you.
I tend to err on the debate non-emotion side of things and only focus on what is at hand. Perhaps I could say "i understand you points" more, thank you
Everyone should know this from my original post on this thread, I am trying to stay away from emotion so as not to cloud my points...
Sometimes I get overwhelmed with all the questions and me being only one person, so I get even more focused on the point and not the person, please forgive me for that
My questions have been regarding the Bible because that's what I believe in fully and since you believe in it too, I wanted to see why we both come away with such differences.
I am having a great discussion, right Skalen
I consider every point made but then I may have more questions about it.
If anyone feels hurt, please know that is not my intention, at all.
Sometimes I feel anger behind a post and I may respond back in anger, but I am trying hard not to, and please forgive me if I have.
Religion is personal, that's why I chose the internet to get my questions answered, and to further discuss Mormon beliefs and the Bible. I don't want to upset anyone esp in real life :)
So, peace, love and blessings everyone!
-
Where specifically?
They didn't have the superfriends back when the scriptures were translated. Invisible doesn't have to mean He has no body or physical existance, there are many invisible things that are physically existant. In fact to you, I am invisible.
We are not omnipresent, yes we have a spirit but ours is not everywhere at once.
And if Jesus has a body, but the Father does not, then they are physically seperate. Is the chair I am sitting in physically seperate from happiness? Of course, the chair is physical and happiness is not. Happiness is physically seperate from all things physical because it has no physical existance. If the Father has no physical existance, then He is physically seperate from all things physical including the body of Jesus which hung on the cross and rose from the tomb.
Now, if the Father and Son are physically One, then we have to admit that the Father has a physical body. And if we admit that the Father has a physical body, then statements about Joseph Smith's assertion that God has such a body are not to be ridiculed.
But, if He has no physical existance, then He is not physically present anywhere.
You asked for those verses. Is this why? So you could laugh at the person nice enough to give them to you and pretend you understand them better? You did not even know what verses Joseph was talking about and now you know all of this much better than he to whom you must come for this information?
You heard Joseph's defiance of your refutations. What do you have to refute his interpretation?
-a-train
Fist of all I think we need to start by aknowledging that God cannot ever be put into some box of human rationalle. Any intellectual argument could not ever define him. If any argument could put him into complete understanding in that box in our mind, then he wouldn't be God.
But for the sake of argument let us consider:
Yes, God in a sense is in everything because he created everything. Scripture tells us he is holding everything together. All things are held together by the power of his word.
We cannot ever fully comprehend that.
God has physically manifested himself or made himself visible to us in a physical way even though he is spirit.
It doesn't negate or cancel his spirit.
Jesus said, If you have seen me, you have seen the father. He is fully God in Jesus as Jesus said "all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in me.
The fullness of the Godhead dwelt in him bodily, but since it is omnipresent it could still be everywhere.
This is the mystery...God is singular...It all began with him. He is the only God... But as a singular God he is also a plural God. It's not either or it's both. That goes beyond any human rationalle, we cannot comprehend that.
No amount of intellectualizing will ever make that easier to grasp.
Everything he created is physical, his creation in heaven is a different composition that that of earth, he holds all things together.
What an awesome God!
a-train, there are many things I could say about Joseph Smiths claims being unbiblical, Insinuating God was once a man etc. Will it matter to you?
At the end of it all, you chose to believe Joseph, and that's perfectly Ok. No hard feelings. I am just a person enjoying a religious debate/discussion. Peace
-
If the FATHER is indeed an omnipresent Spirit without any physical body, and the Son alone possesses a body of flesh and bone, then They are by definition physically seperate.
If They are NOT physically seperate and One has a body, then Both have a body because they are physically One.
-a-train
So you don't believe that "God the father" has a seperate body or personage from Jesus, as Joseph Smith taight?
i need further clarification on what you are ACTUALLY saying here...
The Nature of God
in Christian Beliefs Board
Posted
How about we start by considering context and how about we also consider the FULL weight of scripture? That way there is no need for "rigid" dogmatic arguments...
We are his creation.
He created us out of NOTHING ....
and I quote:
"Joseph Smith taught that matter is eternal and God had no power to create out of nothing. God reorganized already present elements, which have no beginning or end and cannot be destroyed (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 350-352). “Since Mormons believe that the elements are eternal, it follows that they deny the ex nihilo creation” (Encyclopedia of Mormonism 1:400).
In Christianity, since there are no actualities that are coeternal with God, it is understood that God created all things "ex-nihilo," or out of nothing. God made the world without any use of pre-existent materials. God is the primary cause of all things (Psalm 33:6; John 1:3; Romans 4:17; Hebrews 11:3). "
In the morning I will go over each verse IN CONTEXT for you A-train, gnight!
peace and blessings