SeattleTruthSeeker

The links don't seemed to want to work for me. I have tried IE, Firefox and Opera browsers...

A Book review and some explanations regarding 1 Enoch and some parallelisms within the Book of Mormon. Maxwell Institute - 1 Enoch I am going to see if I can get the book in my possession and read through it... definitely does sound interesting.

That is one of the most difficult questions to answer. Why? Because what we have is what we have. It is unfortunate that we don't have the original penned manuscript of Genesis, nor Enoch. Thus, to answer from silence is a very dangerous thing. All we are able to do is make a logical hypothetical guess as to what and how. If the Early Church claimed Enoch was definitely inspired and then centuries later it is found to be non canonical, there must have been some shift in ideaology and change in doctrine or belief. The fact remains, Jude quotes from Enoch, Genesis has a fragmented passage that deals with the same deluge that the Watchers section of Enoch deals with. Unless one were to go to the extreme and claim that these angels were nothing more than an advanced alien civilization... (which of course brings to mine the German Author of Chariot of the Gods who claims that the Old Testament is the best historical account of Alien interactions with humanity and supportive of the UFO claims), then we are left with nothing more than scratching our heads and discussing how and why.

Actually, and unfortunately, both Vision of Lehi and Papilio are wrong. Genesis 6:3 is a fragmented passage that is parallel to the Coptic Version of the Book of Enoch. There are two versions of Enoch, the Coptic version (or Ethopic Version) and the Syriac Version. The coptic version goes into detail as to who the sons of God were and the Daughters of men were. What is even more supportive is the mention of the Nephilim in Scripture (giants). From the Coptic book of Enoch: The nature of the Book of Enoch is highly disputed. At one time, this book was highly prized as being as authoritative in first century Christianity as the epistles of the Apostle Paul. The history of both the book of Enoch and how it was lost through the annals of time, only to be rediscovered once again is intriguing to study. What is even more interesting is that Jude actually quotes from this apocolyptic book. From Wikipedia, here is some information on 1 Enoch. More info can be found here. Book of Enoch I hope this helps.

This is where the process of sanctification comes into place. The whole purpose behind the BoM teaching that we are saved by grace after all that we can do.

I believe there is a misconception as to the purpose and nature of Baptism. While I agree that baptism is a necessary gospel principle and ordinance, the nature and purpose behind the Baptism is not for the "washing away of sins" as most assume it to be, but for the recognition that we are putting to death the Old man and rising in the newness of life Christ offers. Baptism, essentially mirrors the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, baptism is the reflection of the Atonement that Christ has already provided unto man. In that, Mankind, by the Grace of God receives the pardon before baptism and is created, or "born again" by the power and authority of God in that he becomes a new creation. Baptism, therefore, is the outer manifestation of that very inner personal and intimate encounter a new believer experiences. The Apostle Paul outlines the significance and purpose of Baptism is reflected in Romans 6 where Paul talks about how, much like Christ was crucified, our sinful nature is crucified with Christ and that just as Christ was buried, we are buried and just as Christ rose again in exalted Glory, so shall we be exalted in glory. Baptism is just not an essential ordinance of the Gospel, but it is (as stated before) an outer performance as to the inner manifestation of our change from carnal sensual destitute sinful man before God, but changed to a holy justified bride of Christ presented unblemished and atoned for. This also reflects both the physical and reality of that Baptism also signifies that as we die in our mortality, we will be buried and eventually will be resurrected in a new life. Thus, baptism is a dual purpose doctrine. Thus, it is not the baptismal act that atones and cleanses us from Sin, but the power and Grace of God. And it is dangerous to say that God's Grace is insufficient to save those whom God desires to save, no matter how grevious the sin is. Why? Because if one is guilty in violating one principle of the law, they are guilty of violating all of the law in its totality. Thus, grace is total in its effectual power. Simply put, God's Grace saves us and changes our nature from sinful carnal man to a new creation and spirit in Jesus Christ. Baptism is the outer manifestation of us putting to death the old man (crucifying the old man) and being buried in Christ, only to rise in newness of Life in Jesus Christ. Hope that makes sense.

It is definitely one of them eye opening teachings that flatten you and your entire preceptions of who Israel's God. The one thing that always got me were passages like Matthew 25 where Christ laments how often he had gathered Israel like a hen gathering her chicks. It is in this sense and truth that Israel did have one God and that this God actually was the pre-incarnate Christ who came to redeem mankind. It is when we take the blinders off and approach scripture honestly, that we see how many times Christ refers to Israel as being their God in the New testament that in this sense, Israel's God truly was one God and that God was YHWH/Jesus Christ. This leaves the question as to who the Father and Spirit are because, the Evangelical Christian is faced with a very serious delimma, that dilemma being the separate distinct identies of the Father from the son.

When it comes to the first article of faith: We believe in God the Father, in his son, Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost the Christian Apologist is quick to relate to members of the LDS Faith as to the reason why the Mormon Religion is not biblical, heretical and dangerously erroneous. The Christian Apologist asks questions that are based upon the bible - Here oh Israel, the Lord is One. They, then, tend to ask how could their be three Gods who are separate and distinct from one another when the Bible teaches that There is only One God? Having spent some time defending the LDS Faith and then Attacking the LDS Faith, I have recently discovered in my studies that the Christian Apologist are the ones who are in error and erroneously teaching false doctrine. Why? Simply put, one question that is not being asked - Who was and is Israel's God? It is when one actually sits down and studies this out, that they discover the truth that the Prophets from Joseph Smith on down have always emphatically taught as being fundamentally true and scripture. Let us begin with the exposition of the famous couplet passage quoted by Christian Apologist: Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one - Dueteronomy 6:4 This is one of many passages that are used to teach that throughout the Bible there is only One God. According to Christian traditions, doctrines and teachings, the idea is that not only is there One True God, but this God is manifested in what is commonly known as the Trinitarian doctrine. And, that this God is spirit. But, before we get into the heart of the discussion, one must distinguish the nature of the Old testament teaching and understanding of God from the New Testament. Why? Because before the New Testament and the earthly ministry of Christ, we have only the Old Testament, the Judaic teachings and traditions on who they believed God was and is. Thus, the very first passage here that is used to defend the Trinitarian doctrine must be examined. It is here that we begin our understanding as to the nature of who Israel God was and Is, and it provides the diving platform to extend into the nature and understanding of how and why Christ distinguished himself physically and spiritually from his Father. In essence, it is the first point in how members of the LDS Faith are able to stand and biblically refute the obfuscated doctrine known as the Trinitarian doctrine. Deuteronomy 6:4 is explicit. Yes, it does emphatically claim that there is only one God. But it says much more than there being One God, it signifies who this one God is: Here O Israel! THE LORD meaning, in Hebrew, this Lord is Yehovah (YHWH). Meaning, the Existing One. And, the one true God to Israel. Essentially, what this is saying in its proper context is: Here O Israel! YHWH is our God and YHWH is one. It is in this context that we begin to understand that yes, YHWH is one God - but who is YHWH? In order to answer this question, we need to go to a very interesting passage of scripture that is as we have from the Masoretic Text: Deuteronomy 32:8-9. When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. 32:9For the LORD'S portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance. When we look at this, there does not seem to be anything wrong with both passages. Yet, it is when we look at two separate words in Hebrew that we begin to see a distinction. In verse 8, we see that the term "Most High" is used. In Hebrew, High is defined in several ways: 1) High, Upper 2) of Davidic King exalted above Monarchs 3) Highest Most High 4) Name of God 5) Of rulers and monarchs or angel-princes. In this sense, and scripture passage context, we can rule out it meaning Davidic Kings exalted above monarchs, rulers, monarchs and angel-princes. This leaves the general definition of High and Upper, Highest Most High and the Name of God. One can immediately see the contradiction rendered because in verse 9, we read LORD as the original Hebrew of YHWH. What is also interesting to note is that before the term YHWH in verse 9, the Hebrew term for Most High is Elyone - or in a more transliteration - elyown. Another word of note on this is that verse 8 mentions how Elyown provides the nations their inheritance and sets their boundaries according to the number of the Children of Israel. There is an illogical mathematic computation that does not add up. Why? There are Twelve tribes of Israel. Twelve Sons who fathered Twelve tribes that made up the nation and people of Israel. Yet, there were seventy nations mentioned in what is known as "The Table of Nations" according to Genesis 10-11. It is this table of Nations that is established after the Deluge and the begining of Noah and his family. Another interesting aspect to this is the original rendering of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 that reads this way: When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God (bene elohim, LXX: "angels"). For the LORD's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage... (32:8-9) This, of course, is according to Jewish Tradition and nature. Thus, understanding the nature between the Most High (Elyown) and YHWH shows that there is a definite distinction. Even without Deuteronomy 32:8-9, there is still the proof as to who Israel's God was (and still is) when he manifested himself to Moses at the Burning Bush, commanding Moses to go unto the Elders of Israel: And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. (Exodus 3:14). When we look at this passage here, we again see a conflict, because the Hebrew word here is Elohiym. Eloyhiym telling Moses: "I AM", in Hebrew is Hayah - Haw-yaw. Essentially meaning one of the following: to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out (Qal) ----- 1a to happen, fall out, occur, take place, come about, come to pass 1a to come about, come to pass to come into being, become 1a to arise, appear, come 1a to become 1a to become 1a to become like 1a to be instituted, be established to be 1a to exist, be in existence 1a to abide, remain, continue (with word of place or time) 1a to stand, lie, be in, be at, be situated (with word of locality) 1a to accompany, be with (Niphal) to occur, come to pass, be done, be brought about to be done, be finished, be goneSince Elohiym does not mean anything regarding Existence, but YHWH means the Existing One, the fact that this may very well have originally been rendered And YHWH said unto Moses I AM THAT I AM. Or, in other words, the existing one has sent you. How do I come to this conclusion? Mere context. When we look at the begining passage of scripture, we come across this: 2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. 3 And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt. 4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I. 5 And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground. 6 Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God. (Exodus 3:2-6). Angel here in Hebrew is Mal'ak mal-awk. Which means - messenger, representative, the theophanic angel, angel and messenger. In the context here, it specifically says, the Mal'ak of YHWH appeared unto moses. Furthermore, we read that the subsequent passages mention the Hebrew YHWH and Elohyim. When we look at the definition of Elohyim, we find that it is a plural meaning: (plural) rulers, judges divine ones angels gods (plural intensive - singular meaning) god, goddess godlike one works or special possessions of God the (true) God GodSo, in order to identify the nature of the person speaking to Moses, we are left with logical reasoning and conclusion that it is one of two people - either the Mal'ak of YHWH, or YHWH's messenger or YHWH himself that appeared unto Mose. It is the latter. Why? because the context of the passage identifies who is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It is YHWH. What is not interpreted by appropiate contextual rendering is Elohyim, even though the Hebrew word is used. Why? Because Elyhoim is not the God of Israel, YHWH is the God of Israel. This goes back to the original Jewish tradition of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 where YHWH's alottment was the Children of Israel, it is YHWH who is the I AM. I will leave it here for discussion. Even though there is much more, I would like some of your thoughts, comments, questions. There is definitely more that will be developed but I will leave it at this.

When a Christian claims that the Mormon Doctrine of the Godhead are false and heretical, they find that they are substantiated. It is when someone comes along and defends the faith and shows forth how wrong their doctrine is do they say their faith is under attack, but do not realize and recognize that they are the ones attacking the faith. I was not attacking Dr. T's Faith, I was defending the truth and the reality of what the Scriptures teaches. Truth is sharper than a two edged sword. The exchange is simple. Christian apologists can't answer and defend the trinity doctrine when it is truly exposed against scripture. Simple as that. Personally, I have nothing against Dr. T. What I am against is the false allegations and bring forth the understanding and reality of what most modern Evangelical Christians can't accept and that is the truth. If this means that their faith is under attack, then they need to bear in mind that the Christian Community spends thousands of dollars attacking the LDS Faith through various forms of media. Why? Because the Christian believer is convinced that Mormonism is wrong and therefore take upon themselves to attack the LDS Faith. If by defending the LDS Faith, you conclude that your faith is under attack, then that is an issue that you are taking way too personally. I answered the questions and provided the support. You have answered those questions and thus, the very last question I have for you. Are you willing to accept the fact that God, the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are separate and distinct from one another? If not, how can you reconcile your answers to my questions?

Again, you take one partial statement and choose to respond to that and not respond to the entirety of the post. Jesus Christ is the Great I Am. So, if you believe that God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are one God as the Trinity teaches, then do you believe That God has a body of Flesh and Blood? Because if so, Christ being God is also God the Father and the Son and the Spirit. This is logically impossible. If God is Spirit (as the Trinitarian Doctrine teaches) Then what happened to Christs glorified body of flesh and bones that he rose with? What do you do with all the scripture passages that teach that Christ is the Son of God and the Son of Man? When did Christ become the Son of God and how can a Son be a father unto himself? Even if Christ was God in the Beginning, how do you deal with the fact that the New Testament, Christ always constantly and consistently distinquished himself from the Father who is also God? Again, these are the same questions I have asked over and over again. Again, the fact you refuse to answer these questions on the weak principle that "I am foolish" and "I am already blind and convinced" Sorry DR. T. I have spent several years studying the Bible, studying History, studying Ancient Near Eastern religions. I have studied doctrinal statements of Faith. I have defended the Mormon Faith, I have attacked the Mormon Faith and Doctrines. The Trinitarian Doctrine is a Paganistic Doctrine that came out of the Nicene Creed of the Nicene Council that was called by a Pagan Roman Emperor who was never a Christian believer but was sprinkled on the head by a priest as a form of baptism, and this was done on Constintines death bed. History does not lie, neither do archeologies, anthropologists and those individuals who are not as blinded as the Christian apologists like Norman Geisler and Matt Slick and others who hold to the Trinitarian doctrine. what I meant by the statement that it doesn't matter how many scripture passages you show me that claim to support the Trinitarian doctrine, the fact is, they are misinterpreted and it doesn't matter because you refuse to see the reality of the heretical doctrine that you are embracing. Call me false and say that what I believe is false, I have the same right to declare the same thing and have a stronger and a firmer foundation. God the Father is separate and distinct. Jesus Christ is the Son of God who is separate and distinct from the father. The Holy Spirit is separate and distinct from the Father and the Son. All three are not three separate Gods as Christian Apologists falsely attempt to teach and share with people who investigate Mormonism, but all three of these divine beings are united in purpose, will and divine sovereignty to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of Mankind. And, if you truly want to know the truth. The first practice and doctrine of a monotheistic belief system was not in Ancient Israel, but in Ancient Egypt when the Pharaoh Anepotepe declared that the Sun God Anton to be the one true God to be worshipped by the Egyptian people. Again, answer my questions directly and show forth how and why the Trinity is biblical. If you can't then that is fine. Say so, but don't come back with another post where you take one statement of mine out of context and try and defend your heretical doctrines. It will not fly with me. I am not here for entertainment purposes. I am here to expose the false arguments of the Christian Apologists and reason with them and declare unto them that all those arguments that they attempt to use to reason and try and declare Mormonism a false doctrine is nothing but illfounded and fallacious presuppositions. The doctrine of the Godhead as believed and accepted by the LDS Church is the one true pure doctrine that has finally been restored. Unfortunately, you would rather hold onto your pagan doctrines and traditions.

Again, instead of actually answering the questions directly, the reliance on "You are wrong and I will not further communicate with you" is something that is not conducive to any form of discussion. What is plain to see (as I have stated in my original post) when I present the evidence from the Old Testament and the New Testament, the Christian believer is left to the same device of "Well, that is your interpretation and you are wrong and believe in false doctrines" and then try and change the subject. Let me make even more simple: "And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hanth sent me unto you." Exodus 3:14 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. (John 8:58) Quesiton, who did the Israelites believe I AM was? Who did Christ say that he was when speaking to the Jews? Next question. How can the Father, Christ and the Spirit be one and spirit manifested in a trinity form as the Trinitarian doctrine dictates? When you honestly look at the Old Testament and realize that the God of the Israelites was YHWH and YHWH (or Jehovah) was the Pre-incarnate Christ, you will realize that Christ, the Old Testament and the New Testament declare the reality of the truth. That truth is that the Godhead is not a Trinitarian concept, but a Triunity doctrine of Three separate and distinct personages. And, as presented, if Christ - being God to the Israelites - was the Son of God in the beginning, how did he become the Son of God? He did not become the Son of Man until his mortal ministry and incarnation. Christ does possess a body of flesh and bones that is resurrected and glorified. Christ also declares that he has come to do the Father's will. Not his will. Christ separates himself from his Father several times in the New Testament - Why? These questions, again, Christians can't answer because they refuse to admit that the Doctrine and tradition of the Trinity is a false and paganized doctrine that is heretical and has no place in the bible. I don't care how many scriptures you present to show forth how the bible teaches a trinitarian doctrine. The fact remains on the premise that Jehovah told Moses he is the Great I AM and Christ telling the Jews that before Abraham, I AM signifying that he was God to the Israelites. Yes, in one sense, the Ancient Israelites had one God and one God alone, and that God was Jehovah, the Preincarnate Christ.

In other words, you are not going to provide any true discussion, just merely saying "You are wrong and I disagree with you and you are foolish and believe false doctrines"

So, will you agree that Christ and the Father are [Separate and Distinct/I] from one another? If not, please explain why and provide any scriptural reference.

Now the questions are being evaded because the reality is, there are no answers you are able to provide and the generalized claim of "they are going to be foolish to you" is a copout, sorry to say. Is God the Father separate and distinct from Jesus Christ? Is Jesus Christ separate and distinct from the Father? Is the Holy Spirit separate and distinct from both the Father and the Son? If not, how and why when the Bible says that Christ is the Son of God and not God the Father? Who is the Great I AM in the Old Testament? YHWH who Christ claimed to be in the New Testament when he says that he is the Great I AM and the Jews took up stones to stone him for they thought he spoke blasphemy because he proclaimed to be God - YHWH. The fact is, Christians who hold to the Trinitarian doctrine, tradition and notion are unable to answer these questions because they are truth and are substantiated in the Bible. Until you can show forth from Scripture and Reason from Scripture, nothing you say have any substance. I have paraphrased Scripture passages. I have presented information that is contained in Scriptures. Can you say the same?

Why are you taking a partial statement from my post and using it out of context and then saying "I am waiting for hard evidence" when I am actually providing actual biblical reasoning from the New and Old Testament. Are you afraid of using the Old and New Testament to defend your faith or you going to sit back and await an answer because you don't like the one given to you? I don't mean to be harsh here, but I have spent my time defending the Mormon Faith when I was a young Mormon Apologist and I have spent many years combating the LDS Faith and using the Christian arguments against the Mormon Faith and Believers and what you have just posted above is nothing more than what many Christian apologists complain and bemoan about on other religious forums that Mormon's do in presupposing that they (mormon's) are taking things out of context. Again - here are my questions to you: Does Christ have a physical body of flesh and bone - Yes or No? The Bible clearly and distinctly teaches that Christ became a Mortal being. Christ was and is the Son of God. Christ is also called the Son of Man in the Bible as well. Christ also declares himself to be the Great I AM. The New Testament teaches that Christ not only was crucified, but rose the third day and rose with a glorified body of flesh and blood which he ascended into heaven with. Now, the question you must answer (and which you have not successfully answered) is this: How can Christ be of the same substance and essence of the father when the Bible - not tradition - teaches that Christ is clearly distinct and separate from God in both physical nature and attributes and titles?

Actually, within the Christian Community that excludes the LDS Believer and Member, while they differ and argue presupposed nonessential points of doctrine (free will vs. Limited will vs predestination, vs good works and grace vs grace only vs inerrantists vs errantists vs king james onlyists vs...whatever denominational christianity one aligns oneself too) they all agree to disagree.

If he still has his body, would you then agree that Christ is separate and distinct from his father? If not, how can Christ have a body but yet not be separate and distinct from God if God is a spirit and Christ has a body that is ressurected, glorified and physical?

How is the assertion if false. Is Christ God, yes or no? Did Christ die on the cross, yes or no. Did Christ rise the third day and after forty days of administering to the apostles and disciples, ascend into heaven? What did he say to Mary at his tomb when he rose? do not touch me for I have not yet ascended. But go and tell my disciples. And he makes an interesting statement that is only in the Gospel of Luke. I go to My God and your God, My father and Your Father regarding his ascension. So, according to Lukes Resurrection account, who does Christ ascend to? When Christ does ascend, did he ascend into the heavens as a Glorified Resurrected Personage possessing a body of flesh and blood? Yes, because the scripture declares this. How, then, is Christ God, possessing a physical glorified resurrected body of flesh and blood when he was God from the Beginning, was God manifested in the flesh and is now God in the heavens above when God is a spirit? The answer is that Christ is not God the Father because Christ is distinct and separate in nature from God the Father, but of the same Divine Essence of God in that He is the Son of God. How is he the Son of God then? Even a bigger question, How is Jesus Christ of Nazereth both the Son of God and the Son of Man? He was the Son of God before his mortal Existence. One can't be separate and distinct from their father if they are of the same substance and nature now can they? Are you of the same substance and nature of your father? or distinct and separate but yet of the same essence of your father? If you can answer these questions with the simple yes, then it destroys the Trinitarian tradition and doctrine. If you answer no in support of the Trinitarian doctrine, then you have to answer no to these questions and in essence deny Christ nature and Existence. That is the dangerous heresey of the doctrine and tradition of Trinitarianism because it truly denies the nature of both God, the Father and Jesus Christ. Even further exposing the falsehood of the trinity of the doctrine, does not the new testament say that if one sees Christ, they have also seen God? Becasue Christ is of the same divine nature as that of His Father? And who is Christ's Father? Himself? Does God suffer from Multiple Personality Disorder? No, no no no. Yes, Christ is God manifested in the Flesh, but Christ is not the Father any more than you are of your own father.

Essentially, do you believe that God suffers from multiple personality disorder?

There is definite conflict between the Trinitarian doctrine and the Biblical understanding. Not only is the presupposed doctrine of the Trinity unbiblical but it is illogical. Why? According to traditional Christian thinking, God the Father is Spirit. Jesus Christ is also God manifested in the flesh and therefore God. The Holy Spirit is God. Yet, God the father is not the son or the spirit, and same with the Son, he is neither the Father nor the spirit; and finally, neither is the Spirit the Father and the Son. But yet, they are one and the same and of the same substance. To complicate things even more. The Oneness believe that God, Christ and the Holy Spirit are ONE and the Same. This is proven false because if this is true, then Either Christ's Resurrection never occurred or God does have a body of flesh and bones. Thus it is unbiblical. Modalism teaches that God the father, Jesus Christ and thet Holy Spirit are One yet manifested in three forms. Again, this is false because one has to either deny Christ's physical bodily resurrection and glorification, or deny the reality that God possess a body of flesh and bones. Traditional Trinitarianism is proven false because, again, focusing on Christ's bodily resurrection, one has to either accept it or deny it and in so doing has to accept that God is spirit or a Personage of flesh and bones. The reality is, when you actually go back and look at the Biblical truth, Jesus Christ is the God of the Israelites (Which bring in the latter part of my question concerning the Masoretic text and the corruption therein). When one looks at the Table of Nations, there are 70 Nations, but when one reads Deuteronomy 32:8, the passage said that each tribe of Israel was allotted their portion of nations. How can you get 70 nations under 12 tribes? You would have to have 70 tribes, not Twelve, the Math does not add up. When you go to the original, it is referring to the fact that Israel was YHWH's Portion and that the 70 nations were given under the control of..... sons of Elohim. YHWH being the son of Elohim. YHWH being Christ and the I AM of Israel (remember Christ saying I AM and the Jews took up stones to stone him for the blasphemy they thought he spoke because only God can say He is the great I AM). This destroys two Christian notions right then and here. Christ being a spirit first and then being born into mortal to take upon himself mortal existence, life and a body, dying and then being resurrected and glorified with a body of Flesh and Bones distinquishes that Christ is separate from the Father and the Holy Spirit. All this destroys the Christian tradition, doctrine and teaching that God is spirit and is in a Trinity form. What the Bible teaches is the perfect doctrine of a Tri-unity and not a Trinity. Tri-unity distinquished the separate and uniqueness of the Father from the Son and the Spirit. In like manner, it distinquishes the separate and unique nature of the Son from the Father and the Spirit, and with the separation of the unique nature of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the son. No, they are not three Gods, but three persons that are unified in divine sovereign will and perfect omniscience. Who created the heavens and the earth? Christ, through the power and authority of God the father. This is what Christians can in any way answer. No matter how hard they try and attempt. I could not for the life of me answer the question to the support of the doctrine of the Trinity even when I have left the LDS Faith and started attacking the LDS Faith and the doctrines. It is the doctrines of the Trinity that have kept me partial to the reality that there are doctrines in the Mormon Faith that are far more biblical than what Christians and ex mormon's truly think and understand. The only proble is that many people do not take the time to actually study out and check resources and references. I have, even after I have left the LDS Faith. The Bible truly does teaches and supports the first article of faith of the Mormon Church. And that is why I am starting to come back to the LDS Faith and coming back to the LDS Church.

Why I refuse and am not able to accept the Trinitarian notion is on the very biblical principle of Christ's bodily resurrection. I have posed this question to many christians and not one could fully, scripturally and logically answer the question. 1) If God, Christ and the Holy Spirit are one in Substance (like water is one substance manifested in three forms - Ice, Liquid and Steam), then how can God be a spirit if Christ become a Mortal Being, died on the cross a perfect and righteous man, rise the third day with a glorified body of flesh and bones and yet still be one and the same substance of God who is a spirit? 2) If God, Christ and the Holy Spirit (Ghost) are one and the same, not distinct and separate from one another = who is the lamb in Revelation and who is the one handing the scroll to the one seated on the throne? 3) If God, Christ and the Holy Spirit (Ghost) are one and the same, then why did Ancient Israel practice a Henotheistic belief system and why was the Masoretic Text (which all Modern Old Testament bibles are based upon) changed to reflect a modern monotheistic belief? No Christian can answer these questions effectively.

The passages you cite are contextually contained within the famous Olivet Discourse. When the entirety of Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 are looked at, the prophetic utterance of Jesus Christ literally was fulfilled in their (the disciples lifetime). This doctrine is known as Preterism - or realized Eschatology. Before anyone here starts refuting this post, allow me to explain. If you take the entirity of Matthew 23-25, you find that Christ decries the woes unto the Sadduccess, the Religious leaders and those who adhered to the false teachings. He then departs (matthew 24) and his disciples ask him specifically when these things would happen. These things, meaning the pronounced woes of the religous people of First Century Jerusalem. According to Preterism, there are two camps of thought. The first is the Partial Preterists. Those who embrace that the coming of Christ was nothing more than his coming judgment upon the nation of Israel. The final culmination of God's wrath being poured out upon the Nation of the Israel, their ultimate end. Thus, the reference to the end of the age refers to the end of the Jewish Age and Epoch. It was when the end of this Jewish Epoch that occured in 70 AD when Titus came against Jerusalem. The historical event is known as the Roman and Jewish War and the destruction of the city of Jerusalem and the Temple thereof (as prophecied by Jesus Christ). Not only is this scripturally accurate, but it is also recorded in Josephus works, the Early Church Fathers (Tertullian, Eusebius and other such early church fathers), Tacitus, who was a Roman Historian. Anyway, when you look at the wording of the passage, where two would be in the field, one has to take a look at the context of the passage. Christ says that when you (referring to the generation of his time) see the signs, to flew. Let the one on the rooftop not go down into his house, but flee. The one who is in the field, to flee. It is in this context that the presupposed doctrine of the Rapture is refuted. The imagery of two being in the field and one disappearing is not a vanishing act, but one would see the signs and know that the destruction of Jerusalem is about to occur and they flee as instructed, leaving the other behind to face the wrath to come. When one studies the historical precedence of the Roman-Jewish War, the events of that time frame as recorded in the annals of history, one discovers that such a war has never been before seen in the history of mankind, nor has it ever been seen after that. Why? Because while the Roman Army camped outside the walls of Jerusalem and the Jews were battling with the Romans, they were battling amongst themselves. In fact, there were three factions of the Jewish people that were at civil war among one another. In his work The Jewish Wars, Josephus describes what he witnessed. Cannabilsm, False teachers, prophets, Christs, etc. Not only that, but Josephus describes that the voice of God was heard from the temple saying "Let us get thee hence" as well as recording that there were seen astronomical events above Jerusalem (today, astronomers agree that Haileys Comet appeared in the night sky over Jerusalem during the seige and destruction), along with the fact that there were witnessed of Angels clad in battle armor above the Roman Army. Tacitus collabrates much of Josephus records. Especially saying "and the voice of the Gods were heard - let us depart hence". So, when refuting the rapture of the Christian believer, ask them, what generation was Christ speaking to in regards to the context of Matthew 23-25? Because the greek word for generation has one meaning and interpretation and that is regarding the contemporaries of that specific generation. Not a future generation, or Jews. When faced with historical evidence, the Christian believer who accepts the rapture can no longer explain away the doctrine of the rapture. In fact, the other scripture to show forth to disprove the notion that there is a rapture to come is the following: Matthew 13: 25-30, the parable of the Wheat and Tares and then in Matthew 13: 36-43 being the interpretation Christ gives. I hope this helps. If you have any further questions or would like more information, I would be more than happen to provide and answer any and all questions.

Actually, I am referring to Gnosticism as the mysticism of Christianity. In this sense, Mormonism (in my opinion) is gnostic because it requires mortal man to rise above his nature, not being dependent upon God, but co-dependent in overcoming the sin nature by his own divine will and to eventually become a God.

I will come back to this discussion more fully tomorrow... I ended up working my regular swing shift last night and then had to work today and just got home from work. Valentines day is busy day here lol...... but thank you all for the contributions to this particular discussion. It poses a very interesting and hopefully new perspective on the difference between Historic Christianity and the comparative study of Pauline Christianity and Gnostic Christianity. Personally, I believe the doctrines and teachings of Mormonism are a more refined evolved and defined gnostic Christian gospel. That is just my personal observation over the years. And, honestly, I don't think that the apostles meant to have their teachings written down for a later generation because their teachings (including Paul's) were for their specific time and issue and are not meant to be the end all be all of God's teaching. It is the one question that is starting to turn my heart and soul back to re-examining the LDS Claims once again. What is hard is to overcome the few years spent studying and defending the Calvinistic faith.

Thank you... my attempt is not to try and say that gnostic christianity stemmed from Judaism of the first century, but to compare the difference between Pauline Christianity to Gnostic Christianity at the time of the First Century. I find it rather interesting that the most intimate individuals close to Jesus Christ are nothing more than a passing voice in the New Testament when the majority of the New Testament are the epistles of Paul. Please don't get me wrong, I have a great appreciation for the things Paul Taught, however, if we come to an understanding of the context of how Paul understood the first century, we come to understand how it is merely his preconcieved interpretations of the Old Testament and teachings of Christ. What baffles me (and is probably an unanswerable question) is that Paul never was "officially" called to be an apostle, he took that authority upon himself, nor is there any substantial evidence to him actually being baptized. All this sheds new light on what is and is not historical Christianity. Timothy