[Real Meaning behind Revelation 22:18-19]

http://www.freewebs.com/nell0/Ehrman,%20Bart%20D.%20-%20Misquoting%20Jesus%20%5BThe%20Story%20Behind%20Who%20Changed%20the%20Bible%20and%20Why%5D.htm

"Charges of this kind against "heretics"—that they altered the texts of scripture to make them say what they wanted them to mean—are very common among early Christian writers. What is noteworthy, however, is that recent studies have shown that the evidence of our surviving manuscripts points the finger in the opposite direction. Scribes who were associated with the orthodox tradition not infrequently changed their texts, sometimes in order to eliminate the possibility of their "misuse" by Christians affirming heretical beliefs and sometimes to make them more amenable to the doctrines being espoused by Christians of their own persuasion."

The very real danger that texts could be modified at will, by scribes who did not approve of their wording, is evident in other ways as well. We need always to remember that the copyists of the early Christian writings were reproducing their texts in a world in which there were not only no printing presses or publishing houses but also no such thing as copyright law. How could authors guarantee that their texts were not modified once put into circulation? The short answer is that they could not. That explains why authors would sometimes call curses down on any copyists who modified their texts without permission. We find this kind of imprecation already in one early Christian writing that made it into the New Testament, the book of Revelation, whose author, near the end of his text, utters a dire warning:

I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to them,

God will add to him the plagues described in this book; and if anyone removes any of the

words of the book of this prophecy, God will remove his share from the tree of life and from

the holy city, as described in this book. (Rev. 22:18-19)

This is not a threat that the reader has to accept or believe everything written in this book of prophecy, as it is sometimes interpreted; rather, it is a typical threat to copyists of the book, that they are not to add to or remove any of its words."

Since many of our critics like to use these verses I figured I'd bring up the real purpose John had for writing these verses. In early Christianity many copyists, the people who would copy the sacred text found on the ancient scriptures, would alter, add, and even delete words and/or entire phrases from the text. Not just the people who were considered heretics but also those who would be considered "orthodox" Christians by people of today. Although the book of Revelation is mostly apocalyptic, this part, however, is not. Notice how this threat is at the end of the book. At this point John was done speaking about the future. The final apocalyptic verse is Revelation 22:5. The threat in verses 18-19 were to the copyists. John was warning them to leave his words alone. If not, the violators would be plagued.

[John 17]

I agree. I hate when people say Mormons aren't "Biblical Christians" when they really mean "Creedal Christians" which is a huge difference.

Same here. Usually, when someone says certain people aren't "orthodox" Christians they're referring to the people that don't believe in the creeds.

["God once was..."]

St. Irenaeus: "God became what we are in order to make us what he is himself," "Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, of his boundless love, became what we are that he might make us what he himself is."

Clement of Alexandra: "yea, I say, the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god."

Justin Martyr: "[by Psalm 82] it is demonstrated that all men are deemed worthy of becoming “gods,” and even of having power to become sons of the Highest."

St. Gregory of Nazianzus: "become gods for (God's) sake, since (God) became man for our sake."

Hyppolytus: "Thy body shall be immortal and incorruptible as well as thy soul. For thou hast become God."

[John 17]

My problem, aside from the "trinity" concept itself, is people saying you must believe in this concept in order to be considered a Christian. At the same time, some trinitarians don't bring up the need to believe in Jesus Christ himself. Another thing that I see as a problem is trinitarians claim if you don't believe in the "trinity" concept you're denying the deity of Christ. Paul, Jeremiah, John, Isaiah, James, Abraham, Peter, Ezekiel, and the other men of God in the Bible couldn't have believed in the "trinity" concept because this doctrine didn't exist until the debate between Athanasius and Arius started which led to the Nicene Creed of 325 which pretty much didn't include the Holy Ghost.

[John 17]

Both henotheism and polytheism would be considered heresy by most traditional Christians. Especially since this plurality allows for the existence of other gods, many would consider the doctrine blasphemous.

Difference between the "plurality of gods" and polytheism:

Clean Cut (with a Coke): The Doctrine of a Plurality of Gods Is Not Polytheism

[John 17]

I'm not well versed in this matter. However, I believe Othodox, Catholic, and Protestant all teach that each person in the Godhead is co-equal and co-eternal. So, I would guess they are referring to hierarchy, or leadership.

The Catholic version has the Holy Ghost proceeding from both so this seems to be more in line with all 3 being of the same substance. With the Orthodox version it seems the Father and Son are of the same substance because the Son is the begotten of the Father, the Father and Holy Ghost are of the same substance because the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, yet at the same time, the Orthodox version excludes the Son in regards to who the Holy Ghost proceeds from. So its as if the Father and Son are of the same substance and the Father and the Holy Ghost are of the same substance but somehow the Son and Holy Ghost aren't of the same substance according to Eastern Orthodox standards. I'm not a trinitarian because I believe scripture teaches contrary to the trinity but if I were a trinitarian I'd definitely believe in the Catholic version where the Holy Ghost proceeds both the Father and the Son.

[John 17]

One major difference that it makes is that we insist, as byte mentioned in a previous post, that God is alone in his nature and essence. We do not share his eternal essence. We are not eternal. God may resurrect us to an eternal future, but he alone is from everlasting to everlasting.

I believe many of us that are LDS would disagree here due to our belief in the pre-mortal life. To me, the fact that the scriptures talk about Eternal Life with the Father and Son can refer to a pre-mortal life as well. After all, eternity is without beginning and without end, not just without end.

I will become much more than I am. Perhaps godlike--certainly compared to now. There will be an exaltation of sorts--a glorification. However, never will there be another God. There is only one. It will be my eternal joy to worship Him, now and forevermore.

Psalm 82:6/John 10:34-35 Thought I'd mention both since John quotes Psalm. I'd compare the usage here to Psalm 89:6 For who in the heaven can be compared unto the Lord? who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the Lord?

Because Jesus and the Holy Spirit are of the same essence, there is no misunderstanding about Jesus progressing to be like his Father, and me eventually doing the same, and there being many gods out there, but me serving a particular one.

This is something I was referring to in the other thread. While the Catholic Nicene Creed states the Holy Ghost proceeds from both the Father and Son, the Eastern Orthodox version has the Holy Ghost just proceeding the Father.

Having said all that, I understand that LDS worship one God, that this will always be so, and that so much about exaltation, glorification, future 'Godhood' is speculation. I'm not suggesting that my allegiance to God is any greater or superior. Perhaps the trinitarian tendency to describe God as "God" or "Almighty God" vs. the LDS practice of referring to "Heavenly Father," shows a difference in tone?

I do have a question. Maybe you can clear this up. Many trinitarians I've encountered have said Joseph Smith's teaching of the "plurality of gods", calling each member of the Godhead, is considered blasphemous. My question is why do they see it to be blasphemous? The reason I ask is because to me its no different from saying "God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit/Ghost."

[John 17]

Most you say? It is hard to believe because you are stating it without any verification. It is just your opinion. I am a trinitarian and I know that the Trinity states the 3 in 1 is three persons in one God.

M.

Most trinitarians I've talked to described it as 3 beings in 1 person that is God.

[John 17]

Which brings me to what I already said: "Even if they did, that isn't what the Trinity doctrine states anyway, so they would be incorrect."

Which proves my point that trinitarians are not in unity with the "trinity"concept.

[John 17]

Agreed. In all the years I've been a part of discussions on the Trinity, I've yet to see a Trinitarian describe it as three beings in one person. Even if they did, that isn't what the Trinity doctrine states anyway, so they would be incorrect.

You haven't but I have heard people describe it that way. 3 beings being 1 person in God. I've heard the alternate: God being 1 being in 3 persons. I've heard people that claim they believe in the "trinity" to describe it as Modalism. Just because you people don't hear some mention it this way doesn't mean nobody says they're 3 beings in 1 person that is God.

[John 17]

I find that hard to believe that a trinitarian would be so sloppy with a definition of the Trinity. Now a person, like yourself, who does not believe in the Trinity, would more likely be very mistaken with such a definition as you have shown above.

M.

How is it hard to believe that's how most trinitarians believe? Yes, most do believe they're a 3-being-in-1-person God. I understand the "trinity" concept. The official declaration is described in the Nicene Creed albeit the concept has changed over the years. The official belief is they're of one substance. Actually its more developed in the Athanasian creed. Especially when it comes to the Holy Ghost. The original Nicene Creed said this much about the Holy Ghost: "And in the Holy Ghost." That's it. By the way, do you believe in the Catholic version or the Eastern Orthodox version?

[John 17]

Now I extremely disagree. And the trinity does not say they are one in person, it says they are one in essense. Misrepresenting a belief does not help your argument. M.

Yes, many do say they're 3 beings in 1 person. And these 2 verses are great against the "trinity".

[John 17]

It may seem to reinforce other scriptures that you hold to, but without that, I have never encountered any interpretation of this passage that would suggest, much less insist, that it requires the Father to have a body. I previously posted a link from a Jewish educational site that explains part of their basic understanding about God's nature is that he is IN-corporeal (Judaism 101: The Nature of G-d). Nothing in the New Testament suggests any kind of break with that understanding of the Father. The shocker was Jesus appearing as the Son of God, in the flesh.

In these particular verses, no. They don't say anything about the Father having a body.

Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

While mankind is created in the image of the Father, Jesus Christ is the express image of the Father. What Christ looks like is what the Father looks like. Since the Son is the express image of the Father and has a body of flesh and bone then the Father has a body of flesh and bone as well.

[John 17]

Could we not all join then, as Lekook hints at? We could all be one with the Godhead?

It's also difficult to reconcile the schema: Hear O Israel, the Lord thy God, the Lord is one, with a vision of the One God as two essential beings (not to mention the Holy Spirit):

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ_-0fQ69XzMtxQPtedTxEUEb2FvBEfOXqAqYHvGcWQaMVAjtsR1w = 1 is just hard to reconcile.

Acts 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

When us LDS bring up Acts 7 many try to say "Stephen only saw the glory of God." Verse 56 shows otherwise. Being on the "right hand of God" refers to position and glory. He stands at the right side of the Father. While you may find it hard to believe that the Father and Son are 2 beings, Stephen, in Acts 7, saw the 2 separate being: the Father and the Son.

[John 17]

John 17 would neither confirm nor deny this trinitarian teaching.

John 17 is a chapter that denies the trinitarian teaching. Like Justice said, this chapter describes how they're one. Verse 3 is a major one. Jesus refers to the Father as the "only true God."

[John 17]

Here is the official invitation for anyone who wishes to explain the Trinity using John 17. I'd like to see all uses of the word "one" in John 17 explained from a Trinity perspective. Of course, I want it taken in perspective of the entire chapter, and New Testament, so if you have to post other scriptures to explain these verses please feel free.

Here are the specific verses I see:

11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

These verses pose a problem for the "trinity". Of course when I'm talking about the "trinity" I'm talking about the 3-in-1 God version of it. Many trinitarians say they believe in the "trinity" but they define it differently; therefore, although they believe in the general idea, they're not in unity about what the "trinity" is. Ironically, the 2 verses quoted most often for the "trinity", John 1:1 and John 10:30, are the best verses that show why the "trinity" concept is false. John 10:30 also describes how they are one. In fact, it shows that their oneness is in purpose, not in person.

[Unfaith Spouse]

The worst thing is that 2 months ago she been "talking" with her ex. She was saying how much she wants to be with him and all. I asked her to delete him from the facebook. She deleted him and now after she told me she had the affair, she added him to facebook.

I commend you for what you did. I, along with many others that I know, disagree with opposite-sex friends in a marriage. The wife's friends should be female and the husband's friends should be male. Its simply a way the couple can protect their marriage. God comes first and then the family. A God-bound marriage, in other words an eternal marriage, should be protected. That comes way before friends. If a friend makes one of the spouses feel uncomfortable then the spouse who's the person's friend should have no problem with their spouse saying "I'm not comfortable with him/her/them around because of this so he/she/them needs to stay away." The spouses are to put each other's feelings first, not their friend's feelings. If a person cares more about a friendship than their own marriage that person doesn't need to be married or at least not until they see marriage as more important than friendship with someone else. In regards to social networking and the computer in general I'd recommend limiting how much time the 2 spouses spend on there. After all, a marriage is between two people, not a computer. Its sad when couples spend more time online than with each other.

[Unfaith Spouse]

Her parents have a high calling in the church and she does not want to ruin her family name because of gossip?

Right...the family name is why. She doesn't want her family knowing simply because of fearing they'd get mad. She doesn't feel bad for doing it as it seems so honestly I recommend a divorce. And if she gets excommunicated don't let that bother you. She did something she knows is wrong yet she's not willing to take responsibility for what she did.

[How can I know if it is really over with my wife's new "friend"?]

The answers some people give...

Rimmer, you admitted you were abusive but you're willing to repent as it seems. Members of the church take serious matters much lighter than they should. First of all if a member of the church cheats on their spouse then the spouse is required to take it to the bishop/branch president. Second of all there is no "who committed the bigger sin" in this. As I said, going by how you've been on here, you've repented of the abuse and those who repent of the sins God remembers those sins no more.

Matthew 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Exodus 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Doctrine and Covenants 42:24 Thou shalt not commit adultery; and he that committeth adultery, and repenteth not, shall be cast out.

God couldn't have put it any simpler than He did. God didn't say "Thou shalt not commit adultery unless thine spouse hath abused thee." If she's not repentant for what she did then yes, she will wish she did. No, you are not to blame. A person could look at the past abuse and use that as an excuse if they wanted but a person's sin is their own sin, not someone else's. You didn't force her to cheat on you, she did that herself. You have every reason not to trust her. And you even said it wasn't a one time thing, it went on for several weeks.

[How can I know if it is really over with my wife's new "friend"?]

I didn't just say some things, we found a "Love Letter" from over 18 years ago with me apologizing about being jealous and possessive. I have been doing it from the start. She just finally had enough guts to cut things off. She has been asking me for years to go with her to counseling. I have been a stubborn mule and have always said no.

Either way, that doesn't mean she should cheat on you.

Telling her what to do is exactly what has gotten me to where I am. I was more than verbally abusive at times. We actually fought before we were married, and we have both hit each other since-me more than her assuredly. And I'm still being controlling. I still am here and haven't left. I am afraid to let her go. I am afraid that she will be happier again without me. This man was not the original problem. He really was trying to help her to understand me and stay with me. It just got too bad for her and he was there treating her well and showing her the appreciation I would not. She did chose to do what she did. But I have chosen to be the way I have by not seeking nor accepting help.

If a man's wife cheats on him why wouldn't the guy tell the wife to not have anything to do with the man anymore? You're making this situation lighter than what it is. Of course he was treating her well, he was in a relationship with your wife. No, he wasn't trying to help her. Helping someone that's married doesn't mean you have a relationship with them.

[Two churches- Church of Jesus Christ..and the great and abominable church?]

Apex...in any discussion of doctrinal differences, the Trinity would be a pretty safe starting place. After, that is a discussion about who God is. As for what makes a Christian, LDS take that to mean how do we assure our blessings in the kingdom to come...of course, through faithful discipleship, growth, not tiring in doing good, etc. Evangelicals take the question to mean, "What does it take to convert?" To that, Billy Graham's famous song is correct, "Just as I am/Without one plea/But that thy blood was shed for me..."

There's a difference, in a way there's not and there is at the same time, between believing in the creeds and the trinity. Some trinitarians do believe in that concept solely because of the Bible and not creeds. Take Shawn McCraney for example. He's an ex-LDS who has this show called Heart of the Matter. Although I don't care for a show that's specifically against any kind of religion no matter what religion it is, I do give him credit for at least saying his belief in the trinity concept is from his interpretation of the Bible and not the Nicene Creed.

[How can I know if it is really over with my wife's new "friend"?]

"I am at fault for being mean sometimes. But not always. And not most of the time in my opinion. Having written that, I see how I could be deluding myself. Not wanting to admit another one of my downfalls."

Your sin is yours, her sin is hers. Sure, you said some things. Doesn't mean she had to cheat on you.

"I do have faults. I need help with my jealousy and insecurity."

Has nothing to do with insecurity. She cheated on you and you have a right to be upset.

"She says we should just forget all the troubles that either of us had and start fresh with a new change of attitude. Ok. But how do we not repeat the same mistakes if we don't know them?"

Don't fall for that. She got caught and she knows it. She wants to "move on", supposedly, because she doesn't want you to be upset for her cheating on you. In other words she wants to go on as if she didn't do anything.

"How do I trust her? She definitely still has some feelings for this man."

After what you have said, I wouldn't trust her. Stuff like this is why I'm against having friends of the opposite sex if someone is married. Girls think guys are the only ones with the mind-set of "Guys and girls can't be just friends." Many girls/women have that mind-set too. Tell her flat out that you want her to have absolutely nothing to do with him. No calling, texting, facebooking, talking even at church, anything. You were verbally abusive but you're willing to own up to it apparently. She just wants what she did to be justified. You're being repentant, she's not. That's the difference.

[Girls snubbed him, but he won in the end!]

To be honest, if some girls think a guy looks better than them they'll say the guy doesn't look good just to lift themselves up. There are some decent-looking girls in my ward who haven't given me the time of day but then again they're pretty much not liked by girls in other wards in the stake so yea their personalities aren't too good either. Even at stake activities they stick with each other instead of mingling with other wards. The girls in my ward don't think I look attractive yet I've had girls that look better than them to say I'm very handsome. When a great looking girl says the guy is cute, handsome, etc then he's good looking.

[Two churches- Church of Jesus Christ..and the great and abominable church?]

Like one person said on here, you can relate it to what Jesus told Joseph Smith about the creeds being an abomination. One could say the church of the devil is the body of believers of the creeds since they're an abomination. The danger is many people seem to put more focus on the creeds than the Bible or Jesus Christ.

This is what I see: critics of the church will say we're not Christians strictly because we don't believe in the "trinity" doctrine. However, they won't say anything about believing in and following Jesus Christ himself making a person a Christian. That's something I find sad. While we LDS do put emphasis on doctrine we do not put them over Jesus Christ. People try to say the verses about the church of God and the abominable church is an attack against churches. The Bible teaches, plainly I might add, that a person cannot have 2 masters. Its either Christ or Satan.

[Hey]

Hello. How are you? Welcome. :)