xanmad33
-
Posts
250 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by xanmad33
-
-
its a good read, and I highly reccomend the site! Wow are we really in agreement on this!!?
lolget ready I feel a new thread shaping up here
-
God is spirit, Jesus is "the image of the invisible God" (Colossians 1:15; II Corinthians 4:4).
I know nobody wants to open this can up again
But for me it's important to be crystal clear about what I am saying, I posted this link already , and I really encourage you to go there for any further clarification on my beliefs about it because it is illistrated beautifully on the site
here is an excerpt from "the oneness of God" Chapter 4
"The Word was not a separate person or a separate god any more than a man's word is a separate person from him. Rather the Word was the thought, plan, or mind of God. The Word was with God in the beginning and actually was God Himself (John 1:1). The Incarnation existed in the mind of God before the world began. Indeed, in the mind of God the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world (I Peter 1:19-20; Revelation 13:8).
If there is only one God and that God is the Father (Malachi 2:10), and if Jesus is God, then it logically follows that Jesus is the Father. For those who somehow think that Jesus can be God and still not be the Father, we will offer additional biblical proof that Jesus is the Father. This will serve as more evidence that Jesus is God. Actually two verses of Scripture are sufficient to prove this point.
1. Isaiah 9:6 calls the Son the everlasting Father. Jesus is the Son prophesied about and there is only one Father (Malachi 2:10; Ephesians 4:6), so Jesus must be God the Father.
2. Colossians 2:9 proclaims that all the fulness of the Godhead dwells in Jesus. The Godhead includes the role of Father, so the Father must dwell in Jesus.
3. In addition to these two verses, Jesus Himself taught that He was the Father. Once, when Jesus was talking about the Father, the Pharisees asked, "Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also" (John 8:19). Jesus went on to say, "I said therefore unto you, if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins" (John 8:24).
We should note that he in the verse is in italics, which indicates that it is not in the original Greek, being added by the translators. Jesus was really identifying Himself with the "I AM" of Exodus 3:14. The Jews, who did not understand His meaning, asked, "Who art thou?" Jesus answered, "Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning" (John 8:25). However, "they understood not that he spake to them of the Father" (John 8:27). In other words, Jesus tried to tell them that He was the Father and the I AM, and that if they did not accept Him as God they would die in their sins.
4. In another place Jesus said, "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30). Some try to say that He was one with the Father much as a husband and wife are one or as two men can be one in agreement. This interpretation attempts to weaken the force of the assertion Jesus made. However, other verses fully support that Jesus was not only the Son in His humanity but also the Father in His deity.
5. For example, Jesus stated in John 12:45, "And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me." In other words, if a person sees Jesus as to His deity, he sees the Father.
6. In John 14:7 Jesus told His disciples, "If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him." Upon hearing this statement, Philip requested, "Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us" (John 14:8). In other words, he asked that Jesus show them the Father and then they would be satisfied. Jesus' answer was, "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake" (John 14:9-11). This statement goes far beyond a relationship of agreement; it can be viewed as nothing less that the claim of Christ to be the Father manifested in flesh. Like many people today, Philip had not comprehended that the Father is an invisible Spirit and that the only way a person could ever see Him would be through the person of Jesus Christ.
7. Jesus said, "The Father is in me, and I in him" (John 10:38).
8. Jesus promised to be the Father of all overcomers (Revelation 21:6-7).
9. In John 14:18 Jesus said, "I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you." The Greek word translated "comfortless" is orphanos, which Strong's Exhaustive Concordance defines as "bereaved ('orphans'), i.e. parentless." Jesus was saying, "I will not leave you as orphans" (NIV and TAB), or "I will not leave you fatherless: I will come to you." Jesus, speaking as the Father, promised that He would not leave His disciples fatherless.
Below are some comparisons which provide additional proof that Jesus is the Father.
10. Jesus prophesied that He would resurrect His own body from the dead in three days (John 2:19-21), yet Peter preached that God raised up Jesus from the dead (Acts 2:24).
11. Jesus said He would send the Comforter to us (John 16:7), but He also said the Father would send the Comforter (John 14:26).
12. The Father alone can draw men to God (John 6:44), yet Jesus said He would draw all men (John 12:32).
13. Jesus will raise up all believers at the last day (John 6:40), yet God the Father quickens (gives life to) the dead and will raise us up (Romans 4:17; I Corinthians 6:14).
14. Jesus promised to answer the believer's prayer (John 14:14), yet He said the Father would answer prayer (John 16:23).
15. Christ is our sanctifier (Ephesians 5:26), yet the Father sanctifies us (Jude 1).
16. First John 3:1, 5 states that the Father loved us and was manifested to take away our sins, yet we know it was Christ who was manifested in the world to take away sin (John 1:29-31).
We can easily understand all of this if we realize that Jesus has a dual nature. He is both Spirit and flesh, God and man, Father and Son. On His human side He is the Son of man; on His divine side He is the Son of God and is the Father dwelling in flesh. (See Chapter 5 - THE SON OF GOD for more on the Son and Chapter 6 - FATHER, SON, AND HOLY GHOST for more on Father, Son, and Spirit.)
------------------------------------
Again I hope that helps clarify what I believe about the nature of God, I also hope nobody feels I am throwing scripture around. You asked my belief and I just want to be crystal clear :)
-
Yes, I believe Jesus Christ has always existed.
In the beginning was the "word" and the word was with God and the "WORD" WAS God, and the Word became FLESH and dwelt among us.
I believe Jesus has eternally existed as The Word, and then became flesh, just as it says
-
aww it's a love fest in here <3
I hold no contempt for anyone, I would love to delve deeper with you all, maybe point by point next time and in a happy lovey way
-
Thank you Charley, from the bottom of my heart, and no, you didn't offend me;)
I would probably like to pick your brain some more sometime :)
-
I cannot understand why this thread is still open?
Is it so that everyone can come as they have to render these harsh judgements against me?
Is it to call me names? Accuse me of hate? Judge my intentions?
What about living up to your name? What about being Christ-like?
What about "they will know you by your love"
If anyone disagrees with my posts, thats perfectly fine, post your disagreement.
Please stop posting your personal judgements of me and my true intentions. You know nothing of me.
I may not have been the most patient person here, or even the most loving in my delivery, but I did try to leave emotion out of it. If you read back through, you will see exactly why things jumped from one subject to another--becasue I was being asked one subject after another. I understand, it's the nature of conversation, I'm not upset, but please don't act like I am the only one responsible for that.
Please forgive me if every question was not answered to your satisfaction, I tried very hard to do so, but alas I am only one person.
I never say I was leaving the board, I said I was leaving this thread. I have every intention of joining other threads that are more focused, I just thought this one had run it's course, especially after Brother Dorsey said the things he did, basically insinuating I am of the devil. I love my Lord with my whole heart, and to have someone insinuate such a vile thing really made me step back and feel it was time to end this thread...
And willow wisp--I could have come back with many other verses and we could go around all day, but at the end of the day it wouldn't matter and I would have wasted my time becasue you had already judged me and my intentions in previous posts, it was obvious to me based on what you had already accused me of that you werent receptive to anything I had to say.
I see no Christ like behavior here today, nothing but judgement, accusation and just plain disrespect, so if you all are done now, perhaps the Mods can do the right thing.
Peace, love and blessing, X
-
I think it's probably best to just go ahead and end this conversation. We are going to go round and round and round...
I'm tired, you all are tired, and at the end of it all, the more I look into Mormon teachings to find the answers to my questions, the more contradictions I am finding... he said, he said, he said
As I understand it, one cannot even trust your prophets or your church publications for truth in revelation and writings? Im confused...Anyway, after all's said and done, I have learned the answer to my ultimate question so, Thank you all for this very enlightening conversation!
p.s. I'm not gonna respond on this thread any further because inevitabley someone is going to say some really cruel things, or just get super nasty and I think I've had all I can handle of that, so...
Peace, love, and blessings my friends! And thank you to all the really cool Mormons that have befriended me here, you guys rock
-
xan- Everyone here agrees that the Bible is just as reliable as the BOM, Journals and discourses, doctrine and covenants, & pearl of great price...Are all those sound doctrines?
I think this statement may be one your problems of misunderstanding LDS doctrine.....I have seen you many times posting excerpts from Journals & Discourses....J & D is NOT official canonized doctrine of the church. The only official canonized doctrine of the church is the KJV Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. All others are not.
xan- Does your bishop preach sound doctrine on Sundays?
I see you've never been to an LDS Sacrament meeting before.....The Bishop sometimes will give a talk but most times it is 2 or 3 members of the ward who are called a week or so before who are given a topic to talk about....these members then with thoughtful prayer and inspiration from the Lord prepare a "talk" to give in the next Sundays meeting. In our church there is no escaping the dreaded phone call from the Bishopric to ask us to talk....every member will eventually give a talk...some more than others. There really isn't any preaching in the standard "Christian" sense. Most talks are how we can improve our spiritual selves. LDS folks really don't need no preachin' because we've already accepted the Gospel...we just need a good message to remind us why we are here!
xan- What about your apostles?
Did Christ's Apostles teach there own doctrine? No and neither will Christ's Apostles in this final dispensation of the Lord's Gospel.
xan- And just to clear up my personal confusion, Your prophet does not preach sound doctrine unless he is "in the spirit"?
Our President, Prophet, Seer and Revelator Thomas S. Monson as well as all Prophets before him in this final dispensation teach only canonized doctrine of the church. They do however give a lot of good advice for our time and remind us about the standards of God. This advice is considered revelation from God...but it's not part of official doctrine. The only time something a Prophet of God says that is doctrine is when he quotes official doctrine or if it is given to him by Christ to be canonized as doctrine and added to current canonized doctrine for this dispensation in the D & C.. Besides you have to remember the church is perfect, not the people and that includes the Prophet. If the Prophet, one of the First Presidency or the 12, any General Authority of the church, Stake President, Bishop, Sunday school teacher or a member giving a talk in Sacrament teaches something contrary to doctrine of the church the members will know it through the Spirit of the Lord. And if it blatantly continues the Lord will remove that person from their calling.
I'm left wondering how anything is ever considered official belief by the LDS church? If truth can change with each and every LDS prophet, then this leads me to believe that Mormons are trusting in mere mortal men, truth is truth, is it not?
All these men claim to speak for God and the one true church, but the historical record clearly shows that most have, at one time or another contradicted eachother...
Many of the doctrines of the Church were given at general conferences and are still believed such as the doctrine of a “Heavenly Mother”. This doctrine is not found in any of the recognized doctrines but yet it is believed by all Mormons I have encountered.
LDS leaders of past have felt that what they were putting forth was very important just like the leaders of today: consider Brigham Young's statement: "What man or woman on the earth, what spirit in the spirit-world can say truthfully that I ever gave a wrong word of counsel, or a word of advice that could not be sanctioned by the heavens? (9) Journal of Discourses 12:127-128 )
-
LDS prefer to say we are literal spirit children of our heavenly Father. I do not actually see the idea in LDS scriptures. The idea got worked into LDS official statements. But i actually feel the idea is a result of misunderstanding D.&C. 132:which talks about "a continuation of the seeds forever and ever." I think it refers to having physical children after the resurrection. Most thought it taught having spirit children. That is one interpretation but not the only interpretation. The only way the Father has children these days is spiritual adoption. "the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto god." (D.&C. 76:24) Since Jesus was a spirit to me my guess is God miracelously created his spirit body much like he did the angels. (Collossians 1:15) The intelligence part of Jesus put into his spirit body "was not created or made." (D.&C. 93:29)
"The spirit of truth is God. I am the Spirit of truth." (93:26)
"Intelligence or the light of truth, was not created or made." (vs.29)
The sex life of God is none of my business. Of course i am RLDS and we don't feel the Father has a body, or a wife. But if i were LDS this is how i would approach the issue. But i have no objection to a pre-incarnate angelic form being created for Jesus intelligence. If i found out the Father had a body and a wife i would would accept it without losing my faith over it.
Jesus was called Rabbi a title reserved for married men. Certain women had came to anoint Jesus body with spices. That was the duty of the widow, or widows. (Luke 23:55,56) In John 11 Jesus calls out a woman in mourning which only a husband could do. If God the Son had a wife that means God had a married life if they arn't separate beings? (Luke 24:39) Under the creeds outside of Jesus the man they are the same person.
I just cannot reconcile what you all have said here, to Mormon Doctrine.
Joseph Smith wrote:
God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! . . . I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. . . . He was once a man like us; yea that God himself, the Father dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did. . . .{10}
Here then, is eternal life--to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you. . . .{13}
Bruce McConkie states, "An exalted and glorified man of holiness could not be a Father unless a woman of like glory, perfection, and holiness was associated with him as a Mother. The begetting of children makes a man a father and a woman a mother whether we are dealing with man in his mortal or immortal state."{15}
All men and women are thus the offspring of this heavenly union.
James Talmage wrote, "God the Eternal Father, whom we designate by the exalted name-title 'Elohim,' is the literal Parent of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and of the spirits of the human race."{16}
I am confused about this one too because it's from a prophet from your church,
Over a period of 21 years Brigham Young taught that Adam was the God of this world, the creator of it, the Father of Jesus Christ, and our Heavenly Father. As the second Prophet, Seer, Revelator and President of the LDS Church, he taught this as essential church doctrine both in private and public discourse.
Here are quotes from Brigham Young on the subject of Adam-God.
"Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days! about whom holy men have written and spoken He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later .... When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; … Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation" (April 9, 1852, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, pages 50-51).
"I purpose to speak upon a subject that does not immediately concern yours or my welfare. I expect in my remarks I will allude to things that you search after as being absolutely necessary for your salvation in the kingdom of God .… Father Adam and Mother Eve had the children of the human family prepared to come here and take bodies; … and that body gets an exaltation with the spirit, when they are prepared to be crowned in the Father’s kingdom. ‘What, into Adam’s kingdom?’ Yes .… I tell you, when you see your father in the heavens, you will see Adam. When you see your mother that bore your spirit, you will see Mother Eve." (October 8, 1854, Where Does It Say That?, pages 1-8, 1-9; Brigham Young Papers Mss, Call # Ms d 1234, Church Historian’s Office, Salt Lake City, Utah.)
"Some have grumbled because I believe our God to be so near to us as Father Adam. There are many who know that doctrine to be true" (October 7, 1857, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 5, page 331).
"I will give you a few words of doctrine, upon which there has been much inquiry, and with regard to which considerable ignorance exists. Br. Watt will write it, but it is not my intention to have it published; therefore pay good attention, and store it up in your memories. Some years ago, I advanced a doctrine with regard to Adam being our father and God that will be a curse to many Elders of Israel because of their folly. With regard to it they yet grovel in darkness and will. It is one of the most glorious revealments of the economy of heaven, yet upon it the world hold it derision." ("A Few Words of Doctrine" reported by G.D. Watts, given by President Brigham Young in Great Salt Lake City, October 8th, 1861. A.M., photocopy of archive # Ms/d/1234/Bx 49/fd 8).
It's my understanding that this is not doctrine anymore, but why did a prophet say all the above things and claim they were revealed to him if they are not true?
Did the Holy Spirit reveal them or not?
-
And again in Genesis 3:22: 'And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:'
I think this article captures that beautifully:
"If you believe that God had any involvement in preparing His own Word, the Bible,
then you must at least acknowledge what it says in any translation, that in the beginning was GOD (singular), and not Gods (plural).
God is not the author of confusion and so, God confirmed in John 1:1, what He said in Gen 1:1, that in the beginning was ONE God Being (singular), ONE center of thought, with the additional information that in the beginning was also His WORD (notice: "His Word," not another God person in a Godhead),
and His Word was always with Him, and His Word was Him. In the beginning, the ONE God
was working, and the thoughts of His mind were executed and verbalized by and through His WORD. And so, after referring to Himself as "God" (singular) 24 times in the first 25 verses of Genesis 1, we come to verse 26 were it says:
"Then God (singular) said, 'Let US (plural) make man in OUR (plural) image, after OUR
(plural) likeness…"
Now, it could well be that God referred to Himself with six plural pronouns to show that HE
is "all in all." The "us" and "our," in this context, would simply proclaim that God is all
inclusive, for everything that exists has its being, and derives its existence from God. God is "US" and "OUR" because God is "ALL in ALL?"
But, primarily I believe that the "us" and "our" refer to God and the Word of God, that
would (later) BECOME the Son of God - Jesus. God, who does not exist in time, is using
proleptic language, to show that from His point of view (expressed by only six plural pronouns) the Word that would become the Son is already a fact, whereas from man's point of view (expressed by 7000+ singular pronouns) the birth of the firstborn Son was still in the future.
Jesus was born of God, in the fullness of time, when the Word of God (not a second God)
BECAME the Son of God.
In Gen 1:24, 25 God made all living creatures according to their kind. Then in Gen 1:26
comes this major change where God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness."
God through His Word, spoke proleptically and prophetically and said let "us" (meaning
Himself and His Word that 4000 years later would become His Son) make man in our image
and likeness. Man was not, at that time, made complete in the image and likeness of God. Not
until after the Word of God BECAME the Son of God, did the "us" and "our" reach its full
original, indented meaning. "
-
-
If God "is the Father of Jesus and that Jesus is the spirit son and only begotten son in the flesh of God the Father." and "There is no way that a father and his son can be the same person"
then it is logical to conclude that you believe that Jeusus had to have a beginning correct?
According to the belief above, it would be reasonable to assume Jesus has not eternally existed, would it not?
-
We don't actually know how spirit children are created. The way mortal beings are created may only relate to mortal beings (remember that God told Eve that she would bring forth her children in sorrow, after the fall.)
Yes you are absolutely correct that Mormons believe God is the Father of Jesus and that Jesus is the spirit son and only begotten son in the flesh of God the Father. There is no way that a father and his son can be the same person.
So then Jesus has not eternally existed?
-
You ignored my questions for pages.
becasue I felt them to be misleading
In post 329:
Further, Jesus was not just 'manifest' in the flesh. He CAME in the flesh. (1. John 4:2-3)
What was begged by Joseph of Aramithaea? 'The BODY of Jesus.' (Matt. 27:58)
What did Jesus show unto the disciples after He rose? His 'FLESH and BONES'. (Luke 24:39)
You misunderstood me and I have shown that is post after post after post.
My intent was to show you my belief that God the Father and God the Son are one.
Jesus came in the flesh, I would never deny that, sorry for the confusion.
How is it that after all these evidences have been shown to you that Jesus is God, and that He has flesh and bone, that you will yet deny that God has a body of flesh and bone?
Joseph Smith's testimony was one and the same as the disciples of old: God 'has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s.'
If you wish to find fault with those who bare testimony of the birth of the Son of God, then start with Matthew His disciple who said: 'Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise...'
Or, perhaps begin with Isaiah who said: 'For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.'
Mormons have not ceased to say in this forum to you that Jesus is unequivocally without any beginning. When will you be convinced?
-a-train
I see you havent bothered to read the links I provided that outlined exactly what I believe.
Not only that, Now you are saying "God" has a body of flesh and bone, this was my hesitation in answering that question before, you see? Our definition of "God" is very different, again this has been outlined for you in my previous posts.
-
lol, yes, and that conversation has already happened
Everyone here agrees that the Bible is just as reliable as the BOM, Journals and discourses, doctrine and covenants, & pearl of great price...
Are all those sound doctrines?
Does your bishop preach sound doctrine on Sundays?
What about your apostles?
And just to clear up my personal confusion, Your prophet does not preach sound doctrine unless he is "in the spirit"?
-
Only if He does so by the Spirit.
How do you know when he "does so by the spirit" vs. something else? And further how do you know whether what you are hearing is "sound doctrine" or not?
-
Correct, it does not, nor does the Bible. Statements from the scriptures that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are One lack indication that the meaning is physical or substantial. If indeed, as you have intimated, God has no physical existance whatsoever, then the sense in which the Godhead is One could not be physical, now could it?
-a-train
actually it does, many times and in many ways.
There is only one God, who is the Creator and Father of mankind (Malachi 2:10).
If Jesus was also the creator, wouldn't this verse alone be a lie?
I have clearly outlined to you my beliefs about God, and that Jesus was God manifest in the flesh, please go read what I posted before you tell me what I believe.
-
The fact that our Saviour was born of the Virgin Mary does not bring about any notion that His existance began in Palestine with His miraculous conception. Just the same, when He took up a spiritual body, this did NOT constitute His beginning.
You should be very careful that you do not enter into blasphemy here. This would be very unbecoming of any professed Christian.
We have no indication either in the affirmative or the negative about sexual activity in heaven or by God and we know nothing of the manner whereby our LORD took on His spirit body. Jesus has eternally existed AS God. His taking on of a spirit body was NOT the beginning of His existance, but another chapter in His Eternal existance.
You seem so reluctant to talk about something that is plainly IN the Bible: that God has a body of flesh and bones. Is it even slightly demonstrable from the Bible that our LORD Jesus has no such body? Is a denial of such not a denial of the Gospel itself? After all these centuries is this what the testimony of Christians has come to? The apostles died in their testimony of the PHYSICAL LITERAL visit of God on this earth, His birth, His life, His death, and His resurrection; and today the so-called Christians will not even admit that Jesus has a body?
Well spoke John of them: 'For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.'
The antis can go in circles for centuries badmouthing and twisting words and constantly redefining everything, but when it comes to admiting something as simple and true as the bodily resurrection and immortality of the Lamb of God their lips cannot confess.
-a-train
a-train, with all due respect I have been extremely willing to talk with you about my beliefs, have I not?
The page I provided a link to answers every single one of the questions asked of me.
And you warn me of blasphemy? I am repeating what your own church has said.
I will get all evidence of this for you, since you make such an accusation.
. "God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory" (I Timothy 3:16; see verse 15 for further confirmation that God is the subject of verse 16). God was manifest (made visible) in flesh; God was justified (shown to be right) in the Spirit; God was seen of angels; God was believed on in the world; and God was received up into glory. How and when did all of this happen? In Jesus Christ.
2. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… And the Word was made flesh…" (John 1:1, 14). Literally, the Word (God) was tabernacled or tented in flesh. When did God tabernacle or robe Himself in flesh? In Jesus Christ. Both verses of Scripture prove that Jesus is God - that He is God manifest (revealed, made known, made evident, displayed, shown) in flesh.
When have I ever denied that? Jesus is God manefest in the flesh.
1. Isaiah 9:6 is one of the most powerful proofs that Jesus is God: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father The Prince of Peace." The terms child and son refer to the Incarnation or manifestation of "The mighty God" and "The everlasting Father."
2. Isaiah prophesied that the Messiah would be called Immanuel, that is, God with us (Isaiah 7:14 Matthew 1:22-23).
3. Isaiah described the Messiah as both a branch out of Jesse (the father of David) and as the root of Jesse (Isaiah 11:1, 10; see also Revelation 22:16). According to the flesh He was a descendant (branch) of Jesse and David, but according to His Spirit He was their Creator and source of life (root). Jesus used this concept to confound the Pharisees when He quoted Psalm 110:1 and asked, in essence, "How could David call the Messiah Lord when the Messiah was to be the son (descendant) of David?" (Matthew 22:41-46).
4. Isaiah 35:4-6 shows that Jesus is God: "Behold, your God… he will come and save you." This passage goes on to say that when God comes the eyes of the blind would be opened, the ears of the deaf would be unstopped, the lame would leap, and the tongue of the dumb would speak. Jesus applied this passage of Scripture to Himself (Luke 7:22) and, of course, His ministry did produce all of these things.
5. Isaiah 40:3 declares that one would cry in the wilderness, "Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God." John the Baptist fulfilled this prophecy when he prepared the way for Jesus (Matthew 3:3); so Jesus is the LORD (Jehovah) and our God.
The questions I have posed regarding Jesus being born (therefore having a beginning) are directly from LDS leaders and doctrine, as are the questions regarding God the Father literally procreating spirit children in Heaven.
If a leader preaches from the pulpit of your church, is that not considered sound doctrine? Just so I'm clear.
-
Did Jesus have a beginning? Or has he eternally existed?
-
I have no idea is the answer to all of them. I don't even understand my own existence and how exactly Jesus was conceived will be a mystery I suspect unless I need to know
-Charley
But doesnt the Mormon church have specific doctrine that teaches this?
Is this not one of the purposes for Josephs Smiths "new revelation"? To know about God? and all the details therein?
I may be confused here, so I will be back after I do some more research, thanks
-
This is our take on it:
LDS.org - Liahona Article - The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent
An excerpt from that talk:
n the year a.d. 325 the Roman emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea to address—among other things—the growing issue of God’s alleged “trinity in unity.” What emerged from the heated contentions of churchmen, philosophers, and ecclesiastical dignitaries came to be known (after another 125 years and three more major councils)4 as the Nicene Creed, with later reformulations such as the Athanasian Creed. These various evolutions and iterations of creeds—and others to come over the centuries—declared the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be abstract, absolute, transcendent, immanent, consubstantial, coeternal, and unknowable, without body, parts, or passions and dwelling outside space and time. In such creeds all three members are separate persons, but they are a single being, the oft-noted “mystery of the trinity.” They are three distinct persons, yet not three Gods but one. All three persons are incomprehensible, yet it is one God who is incomprehensible.
We agree with our critics on at least that point—that such a formulation for divinity is truly incomprehensible. With such a confusing definition of God being imposed upon the church, little wonder that a fourth-century monk cried out, “Woe is me! They have taken my God away from me, … and I know not whom to adore or to address.”5 How are we to trust, love, worship, to say nothing of strive to be like, One who is incomprehensible and unknowable? What of Jesus’s prayer to His Father in Heaven that “this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent”?6
...
...
It is not our purpose to demean any person’s belief nor the doctrine of any religion. We extend to all the same respect for their doctrine that we are asking for ours. (That, too, is an article of our faith.) But if one says we are not Christians because we do not hold a fourth- or fifth-century view of the Godhead, then what of those first Christian Saints, many of whom were eyewitnesses of the living Christ, who did not hold such a view either?7
Also in this talk, notice the proofs cited in the New Testament that Christ is speaking to His Father.
Good luck.
Do you believe "God the father" had physical sex in heaven to concieve Jesus? Therefore Jesus had a beginning?
Also do you believe that Jesus has eternally existed AS God?
-
But Mormon doctrine does not recognize them as being the same ultimate being correct?
They recognize God the father having sexual relations with Mrs. God (if you will) and having Jesus correct?
So according to Mormons they are not one and the same correct?
-
I will not answer your past questions to me. The condition for our continuing to dialogue on this topic is solely limited to the latin word persona. I am asking the questions now. I only want to see if you really know the creedal idea of them being non-persons persons is Biblical based on anything you have clearly found in the Bible.
If the meaning of persona is really in the Bible you should not have a difficulty in proving the three as not being defineable as modern persons? Let us just examine passages where the three are aware of each other like three modern persons. Then show me what definitions of persons, Paul, Jesus, or any New Testament writer was operating under to avoid being accused of mixing the idea of three Gods with ideas of one God.
I did not write the creeds. the creeds superimpose persona every time on passages dealing with the threeness of God. So i really want you to take out your Bible only on those passages that clearly teach the distinctly aware persons. Then i want you to show me from them where those texts where they mean mean persona, or have any meaning similar to persona. The word Trinity is not in the Bible. But the meaning is supposed to be all Biblical So i challenge you to show me that they felt the persons were like three dumb persons an actor plays. Or show me exactly where they used the word persons in reference to the three where they clearly meant non-persons. Otherwise the Godhead is split into three modern persons even if treated misleadingly as one God.
Can you prove the creedal idea of persons Biblical? That is what your church teaches.
I found this article and I think it may answer your question:
" Although God is one being, he is not one person and although he is three persons, he is one being. Our English word "person" is derived from the Latin word persona and this was in fact the word used by Trinitarian Latin theologians to describe the three hypostases of the one God. The word persona was not a word that is equivalent to our modern English word "person." It was a word originally used for a role that an actor portrayed in a play. It was also the word for "mask," because actors wore different masks for each character they portrayed... The idea here is that one being reveals himself in three different ways.
The word "being" can be used as a synonym for "substance" since the word "substance" is intended to mean the essence of being. However, they could also mean God is "one identity" although he is three distinct identities. This definition is usually brought into play when it is understood that God is normally portrayed in Scripture with the personal pronouns, "He," "Him," "I," and "Me." so, God is three persons, yet God is one Being, God is three identities, yet God is one identity.
To describe the essence of divinity or deity (and also humanity as pertaining to Jesus' human nature). The word comes from the Latin word substantia which has its own Latin roots similar to the Greek roots of the Greek word "hypostasis," since both are etymologically derived in their own respective languages from words meaning "under" and "standing." The English theological term "substance" is intended to translate the Greek word ousia. It essentially means stuff that makes something what it is, essence of being. In this sense, it is similar to the philosophical use of the term hypostasis. But in Trinitarian terms, the word "substance" is not the same as hypostasis. Each is a distinct and different hypostasis but they are all the same substance or essence. The Greek word ousia connotates a sense of being. Thus, God is one being because God is one ousia substance consisting of three hypostasis."
Here is a very in depth article on what I have been trying to explain perhaps not so well, and I even agree with the objection the writer has with the trinity
please take the time to read it and understand my position better, although I am not pentecostal, I do agree with these articles thanks you! Follow the links to answer you specific questionsAgain, there are so many great questions but you all must remember, I am only one person and I am trying my best to keep up.
Thank you to the folks who can see my heart, I really appreciate you!
I love to discuss religion, it's a passion, if we can get past the insults, and have a good discusiion all the while remembering that I do have a life on occasion
then I think things will go better:)My personal frustration has been the accusations, and really that's it!
I am enjoying this, but I pray we can all take a deep breath and be kinder to one another.
Thank you to leeanne, DR T, smiling red head, and the mod (i forgot your name at the moment) , but you all have been extremely kind to me.
And p.s. mod- I did not read the entire quote about Jesus that upset you, my fault and please accept my apology. I still think it is relevant though :)
-
There is so much evidence in scripture this could take a month!
Ask yourself why would Jesus call himself God, if God claims to be the only God?
JESUS - claimed to be God, equal with the Father, is clear from numerous Scriptures. For example, He said:
“I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty” (Revelation 1:8).
HOLY SPIRIT — the Bible teaches that He is a real person, just as are the Father and the Son. Jesus said:
"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak; and he will show you things to come” (John 16:13).
"Each Person of the Godhead equally and fully and eternally God. Each is necessary, and each is distinct, and yet all are one. The three Persons appear in a logical, causal order. The Father is the unseen, omnipresent Source of all being, revealed in and by the Son, experienced in and by the Holy Spirit. The Son proceeds from the Father, and the Spirit from the Son. With reference to God's creation, the Father is the Thought behind it, the Son is the Word calling it forth, and the Spirit is the Deed making it a reality.
We “see” God and His great salvation in the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, then “experience” their reality by faith, through the indwelling presence of His Holy Spirit.
Though these relationships seem paradoxical, and to some completely impossible, they are profoundly realistic, and their truth is ingrained deep in man's nature. Thus, men have always sensed first the truth that God must be “out there,”
Similarly, men have always felt the need to “see” God in terms of their own experience and understanding, but this knowledge that God must reveal Himself has been distorted into polytheism and idolatry. Men have thus continually erected “models” of God, sometimes in the form of graven images, sometimes even in the form of philosophical systems purporting to represent ultimate reality.
Finally, men have always known that they should be able to have communion with their Creator and to experience His presence “within.” the truth of God's tri-unity is ingrained in man's very nature."
If Jesus is not God, then why did he call himself God?
The Bible says God is the ONLY God, if that's the case wouldn't Jesus be blasphemous to "the father"?
lol
Xanmead33-an apology
in Christian Beliefs Board
Posted
z-todd, I was asked for clarification on my beliefs. Just as you would want to make crystal clear when someone misunderstands you, I feel the same way.
I also do not fully know what you believe enough to know that that was completely opposed to it, and it was kinda the question, so thank you for the info, and in the future I will be more discerning.