Shadow
-
Posts
26 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Shadow
-
-
RAM: I believe we are all to follow Christ as best we can. And yes, we should represent him in our lives. My point is, if the Trinity
is a mystery, it makes it more difficult to follow a mystery.
This wouldn't make it more difficult, because did not Christ come and tell us what we needed to do? Even before him did not the Jews have
contact with God to tell them what to do? Just because you don't understand one of many aspect of God that doesn't mean you can't follow
what he said.
RAM: Once again, if we want to toss out Joseph Smith for a prophecy you think is false (and it isn't), then we have to reject Jesus for
his false prophecy, as well. The Bible does warn about false prophets, but it does not state that one wrong prophecy makes a false prophet.
Actually it does. You can read-
Due 18:22 : When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor
come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously
thou shalt not be afraid of him.
Now lets go over the words in Hebrew so that there is not error in our own translation of the verse.
afraid in Hebrew is "gur" and means: to turn to him, to dwell, fear, and gather.
prophet in Hebrew is "nawbiy" and means: inspired man.
So it should be easily understood that we are not to listen to that man. Not to dwell or go to him. And yes if 1 false
prophecy comes, it makes him a false prophet. You stated that Jesus made a false prophecy, but could you give us the verse
so that we may see if you claim can be remotely true. I believe I know what verse you are talking about, but I would like
to know for sure.
Oh, Peter tells us in Acts 3:
Quote:
20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets
since the world began.
IOW, the Second Coming cannot occur until there is a restitution of all things, which all the prophets had foreseen. Given that Peter was
not declaring that restitution had occurred, it must have been a future event. This restitution of all things is, in LDS belief, the
Restoration of the Gospel in the last days.
Aren't they talking there about the foretelling of the end times? If you continue to read the verses after it seems that they are talking
about the things to come, in Acts 3:24?
RAM: Once again, you are taking one verse out of the entire Bible and interpreting it differently than the Bible was meant to be read.
And you are saying you are not doing this? All you have showed my is this in fact and that you don't take the time to research
what the words actually mean in their original Hebrew. For example the verse in Isaiah, the verse in Exodus, and many others
that support these.
Isaiah knew and understood about the divine council, as he saw it in Isaiah 6. Margaret Barker and other non-LDS Bible scholars have
written on this.
Out of that whole chapter you referred to in Isaiah, there is only one verse that seems to point to more than "one god", but not a council,
as it also identifies the rest as to be serphims. Here is the verse:
Isa 6:8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I send me.
But right here is where I believe it is the Trinity of; God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. Also I don't see how you could
say here is proof of a council of "many gods" and give a number. (As you claim to be some 70)
I suggest you read a few scholarly sites, instead of the anti-LDS sites.
Wow, you think all I am doing is reading anti-LDS sites? First I am not doing so, but 2nd if I were, you can't even defend
that properly.
As I stated, the early Christian Fathers believed God and Jesus to be separate beings. How else are we to understand going to the Father
through Jesus? If they are the same being, then you automatically would go to the Father, with or without Jesus! Christ, as Origen and
others taught, is God, but subordinate to the Father. Stephen saw two separate beings, the Father and the Son - was Stephen lying to us,
or was God lying to Stephen? Or did Stephen tell us the truth?
Ok, here let me help you with this. I will try to go over everything I know about the Trinity. I hope this makes sense, and many other
Christians believe this too, so I am not the only one on this.
Here are 4 concepts that the Trinity tries to accomplish: (1) Jesus Christ is God in flesh, (2) God the Father is also God, (3)the Holy Ghost
is God, and (4) There is only one God.
Here are a couple of verses that support that there is one God and only one God.
Isaiah 43:10 - : Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen that ye may know and believe me,
and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
God- In Hebrew is "ale" and means: any deity (notice that it is any, meaning of any kind)
Formed- In Hebrew is "yatsar" and means: make
After- In Hebrew is "achar" and means: beside, by, following, hereafter
Deuteronomy 6:4 - Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD.
one in Hebrew is - echod which means: alone, first, one, only
LORD in Hebrew is - y'hovah which means: self existent, eternal, Jehovah
Isaiah 44:6: Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; am the first, and I am the last;
and beside me there is no God.
First- In Hebrew is "ri'shon" meaning : in place, in time, order
Last- In Hebrew is "acharyon" meaning : later, uttermost
no- In Hebrew is "ayin" meaning : nothing, not exist, never
This is pretty simple to understand too don't you think?
Now you believe that God the Father is God so I won't have to prove that to you. But Jesus and the Holy Spirit being God
I may have to prove so I will do it right now.
Holy Ghost:
(Act 5:3) But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie4 to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of
the price of the land?
(Act 5:4) Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou
conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
Here God in Greek is "theos" which means: A deity of supreme Divinity.
Jesus:
1 Tim 3:16 - And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: 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.
And for there to be only 1 God yet to be 2 different persons there is the Trinity. And that is what I have been trying to
say 3 persons as one being. They are 3 different beings, nor am I saying that they are the same thing, but they
are 3 persons as one being, as a shamrock or egg has three parts in one being.
Also for your information the Trinity was being taught during the 3rd century. You can look it up if you want to.
RAM: Or it can be taken literally that Moses saw God face to face. How is it that you are the chosen one to determine what is literally
correct, what is metaphor/simile, and what is incorrect?
This is actually kind of a sad statement. Because this question could be easily rephrased to state something like this: "How
is it that you are the chosen one to determine what is literal?" Also you can easily prove that it was not literal because
if you read just a couple more verses, God says to Moses that no man can see his face and live.
Clearly there is a disagreement in the Mosaic record, probably due to being
from two different sources. The early prophets had not problem with the idea of seeing God. Jacob called a place Peniel, because he saw
the face of God.
Could you supply the verse for this please?
Stephen saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God (suggesting he saw God). Isaiah stood in the presence of God and
proclaimed he had unclean lips (Isaiah 6), but lived. Shall I go on, or are you going to stick with one verse to justify destroying the
testimonies of all these prophets?
Just because you cannot see Gods face doesn't mean that you cannot be in he presence don't you think?
-
RAM: No, the OT tells us that if a man prophesies and that prophesy does not come to pass, to not believe in the prophesy. Did you
know
that Jesus prophesied and expected the second coming to be in that very generation? Does that mean his 1 wrong prophesy makes Jesus a
false prophet? I don't think so.[\Quote]
Would you kindly reply with the verse in which he did?
You've misread D&C 87. Joseph Smith said that modern warfare would start with the Civil War, where the South would call upon England andother nations for assistance. Later, England would call upon nations for help, at which time war would fall upon all nations. Looks like
Joseph Smith was correct, after all. I suggest you start looking at the actual prophecies and studying them, rather than picking up bad
info from anti-Mormon sites.[\Quote]
Actually England wasn't in the Civil War. It was between the North and the South. Also England was going to help the South win, but due to the South's loss at
the battle of SharpsBurg or Antietem, England refused help. Also did the Civil war become a World war ? No. If it did
World war 2 would be in-fact World War 3, correct?
Moses saw God "face to face" - does that mean Moses lied? I would suggest that the Bible is incomplete on its meaning. Joseph Smithtaught that a person could not see God, unless transfigured by the Holy Ghost; which is what occurred to Moses, when he saw God. Oh,
and Stephen saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God - which to me means that Stephen saw God the Father. Shall we continue this dance?
[\Quote]
Actually God himself told Moses could not see his face, so are you calling God a lier? God said that no man could see His face or he shall die.
It is in the Book of Exodus. Here is the verse:
Exo 33:20 : And he said,Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
In this verse:
not in Hebrew is "lo" and means: no, or never
see in Hebrew is "ra'ah and means: enjoy, have experience, gaze, percieve, see
So here God is basically saying, that man can never gaze upon the face of God and live. I believe this is
pretty easy to comprehend and it does say that Moses and God met face to face, but that we can say this was figuratively
because God himself a couple verses later states that no man can see his face and live. You can see his glory though, which
Steven and Moses did see.
You are only proving your poor and inconsistent knowledge of the Bible.[\Quote]Hey, you don't need to shoot the messenger. All I am doing is presenting the facts. You assume many things in the Bible without
actually reading into what they mean for example you said, "Jesus standing on the right hand of God - which to me means
that Stephen saw God the Father", this is an assumption made by you will no other facts than, "to me", in which you
stated yourself. If you actually read the verse, it will state that Stephen saw the glory of God, which is completely
different then the "face of God", so once again, Joseph Smith was incorrect about teaching that one can see God's Face.
Because not one man in the Bible states that he saw the face of God.
RAM: The men that were on the road to Emmaus, when Jesus spoke with them incognito, stated after he disappeared, "did not our hearts burnwithin us when he spake?" Elijah sought God, but did not find him in the earthquake or the fire, but in the "still, small voice."
A Still small voice? I fail to see in that sentence where it states that it comes from the heart.
And Paultaught that the fruits of the Spirit are peace, joy, confidence, etc. Clearly, these are emotions that are involved, as Mormons claim that
the Spirit burns in the bosom or is a "still, small voice" that speaks to the heart of man.
How are the fruits of the spirit feelings? Like patience, or confidence, how is that a feeling? Also even love, Jesus stated
to love your neighbor as yourself, do you emotionally love yourself as you love your wife/Mother or father? No, there is different levels of
love as you have stated yourself.There are many verses that support that love is a verb not just an emotion.
As for demons, they can do many things, but the Bible doesn't specify what he can or can't do. It is a fool that trusts in his own heart,but it isn't a fool that trusts in the witness of the Holy Spirit - there is a difference. I can tell the difference between my own
emotions and the power of the Holy Ghost within me.[\Quote]
True, but is the power of the holy spirit a good feeling?
RAM: How do you prove Jesus' miracles? How do you prove the dividing of the Red Sea? The only "historical documents" available are nothistorical documents. It is the Bible and a few other Jewish documents that are still available. But the copies we have do not date back
to Jesus' day, much less back to Moses' day.
Joseph Smith was tarred and feathered, beaten, falsely imprisoned, and murdered for his faith. Sounds like Paul and the apostles of old
had nothing on Joseph Smith.
The splitting of the Red Sea actually can be proven as they have found Egyptian Chariot parts in almost the center of the lake. Now
there were actually quite a bit of them not just a single wheel. But there the Bible once again is proof as they are human
account of what happened.
Actually the New Testament was written during the 1st and 2nd generation after Christ, so the documents could in fact be very accurate. As
they are very accurate.
Joseph Smith was falsely imprisoned? Are you talking about when he was imprisoned in Carthage? They had every right to imprison him. And
to end the whole thing there he died in a gun battle, with his six shooter and killed 2 men. So no he wasn't murdered, if he was killed
unarmed that would be murder. (This must be the one biggest myth of Joseph Smith.)
And there your are wrong, did any of the apostles kill any of their own executors or attempt to?
RAM: You can read it as you wish. To me, "co-heirs with Christ" means we will get exactly what Christ received. Is Christ "God" or "like
God?" Peter says we can partake of the divine nature of God. Does this mean God's exact nature, or something else? Who is twisting the
scriptural reading here? I don't think it is me.
I can read it as I wish? Did you not read the verse I gave you in Isaiah? It was put out in plain English. That there are none other than
I no, not one. How is partaking in the divine nature, becoming God? Could it not be meaning that we become divine in nature? Maybe
like angels, with pure bodies?
RAM: There is no God beside God. However, there are gods subordinate to him. In fact, Origen and Eusebius taught that Jesus was asubordinate God to the Father. We will never be on the same level as God is. He is the one that saves and exalts us, and so we will
always be his children in the eternal family unit. Besides, Isaiah was discussing the God of Israel, and not the other divine council,
which were gods over the other nations. In some other nations they shared gods, or a god was overthrown by another, etc.
Again if you read the verse, the word besides, means "min" - meaning: above, after, among, at, because of[\b], by(reason of), from (among).
Because of is where God doesn't make other gods. You are not god because of him. In other words he doesn't exalt you as a god. Because
it would then be given that God made you a god, because of him.
RAM: The Trinity is not understandable. Just as with science, I cannot prove a theory, all I can do is disprove a theory; I can only tellyou what the Trinity is not. And I do not know of anyone that can deftly describe the Trinity, as the creed itself calls God "unknowable"
and "incomprehensible." If you pretend to understand the mystery of the Trinity, then you do not understand the creeds. And your
modalistic example you gave previously shows you do not understand it.
How can you say something is not, when you don't know what it is? Is God incomprehensible? I believe to a certain extent. Being that if we
could explain "God", could we not then be God ourselves? To explain "God" we would have to be all knowing, correct?
RAM: Because the Trinity is a Spirit, without body, parts or passions. That is what the creeds teach. I cannot explain the Trinity,because I do not understand how God the Father can be without a body, and Jesus with a resurrected body, and still be one substance.
According to the creeds, anything that is not pure would defile God, this would include any physical substance. For God to take into
himself a physical body made from the impure materials of the earth would make God impure.
So are you saying what God created is impure to him? Are you saying that God cannot accept what he created? He created the "human" if you
will, and is it not sin that caused Adam and Eve to be separated from God? If so would it not be the human flesh, but sin that defiles
God?
The LDS view is that God is made of the same substance as we are. He has a physical body as we do, however his body has been purifiedand glorified. So, both God the Father and Jesus have glorified physical bodies. They are one in the Godhead - one in purpose, unity,
and Agape love.
Yes, I do know the LDS view, but there are many places in the Bible that states that God the Father has "Other Parts" or "Characteristics"
that man does not. For example it states that God has wings, or that he can breath fire from his nostrils. So if you took every description
of God the Father and put it together would you not have something similar to a Dragon than a Human?
-
RAM: We can discuss issues, both pros and cons about facts on Joseph Smith. But in the long run, it can't "prove" or "disprove" anything.
Can we "prove" the miracles and resurrection of Jesus? Of course not. Somewhere along the way, it takes getting an answer to Jesus'
divinity that human minds cannot obtain on their own. We find that "the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" (Revelation 19:10),
therefore suggesting that testimonies of Jesus' divinity can only come through the spirit of prophecy. And so it is with any religious
claim. While I can load you up with evidences of the Book of Mormon and other LDS claims, only a spiritual confirmation from the Holy
Spirit can assure a person of its actual veracity. Otherwise, we get a variety of conclusions about Joseph Smith (or Jesus, for that
matter). Dan Vogel calls him a pious fraud, Harold Bloom considered Joseph Smith a genius with some spiritual insight, some call Joseph
an imbecile, others consider him a genius. Of course, LDS consider him a prophet of God. After looking at the evidence, how does one
"prove" whether the witnesses of the Book of Mormon really saw gold plates, rather than some tin plates that Joseph put together?
Actually doesn't the Bible state that you can tell a prophet as a true one or not by if they false prophesied 1 time? Joseph Smith did.
He prophesied that the Civil war would become a world war. That didn't happen and according to the Bible all it takes is one strike. Also
no man can see God the Father, God told Moses that, so Joseph Smith had to have lied on that. If you say Joseph Smith did do that then
wouldn't you be calling God a lier to Moses?
Also you state that it has to be a conviction to know the truth or it seems some type of feeling. First doesn't the Bible state that only a
fool trusts in his own heart? Also can't demons tempt people with a "good feeling"? Or can they only do tempting through pain?
Then again, how does one prove Jesus' miracles or his resurrection? Perhaps it was all made up by Paul and a few other eager Christians.Only a spiritual witness, can suffice. And in Paul's case, that is exactly what it required to convert him.
Actually you can prove it through historical documents of the time. The resurrection could be a little more tough, but most of it could
be proven. Also the apostles were not killed in the best way. One was crucified, one flayed alive, another headed, one was burn (and lived)
, so I would have to say it would take some character to make it up and then be treated this way, and still preach it. Paul lists all of
the stuff he went through and so no I think this is kind of sad on your part to state this.
RAM: Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God IN THE FLESH. We are begotten spiritually of God.Would you please show me where in the Bible it states this?
This is critical, because it helps us understand our place with God. Knowing we are his spirit children means we are not createdex nihilo, and that we are of the same substance as God is. This means that all the biblical writings and early Christian writings about
us becoming divine, are correct. The Platonic idea that God is of a different substance than man means we cannot ever be like God. But
the earliest Jews and Christians did not think that. Paul taught we should think like Christ, that it was not robbery to be like God, and
that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ. John the Revelator states we are made kings and
priests unto God, and to reign with him forever. Peter says that we are of the divine nature.
Actually we can become "like" God, but not "God", this is where the confliction is. You seem to be saying that we can become God. And
that has to be false and I will tell you why.
Please read this verse:
Isa. 44:8
Fear ye not, neither be afraid. have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a
God beside me? yea, there is no God, I Know not any.
Here are the definitions for the underlined words:
declared- In the original Greek it is "Nawgad" - meaning : To stand boldy out, to announce
God - In the original Greek it is "eloah" - meaning: a deity
besides - In the original Greek it is "min" - meaning: above, after, among, at, because of, by(reason of), from (among)
no - In the original Greek it is ay-yin - meaning: To be nothing or not exist; non-entity
So by reading this verse (and many others) I would have to say that it is pretty laid out right here that there are no other Gods
or deities above, after, among, at, because of, by (reason of), from (among) than God the Father (The Trinity). But you say there
are some 70? Would you like to elaborate on this?
RAM: I cannot explain the Trinity. It is a mystery. Part of the description in the creeds is that the Trinity is "incomprehensible"and "unknowable", so why should I even try to explain that which is not explainable? Still, I must understand it better than those
Trinitarians who describe the Trinity in a modalistic manner. Otherwise, they would cease attempting to describe it in heretical
modalistic fashion.[\Quote]
So you cannot explain the Trinity, but you can state that I am wrong? To state that I am wrong you must have some understand of what
you believe the Trinity is, or are you just stating this to cause a conflict?
The Trinity also confuses the resurrection of Jesus. How can Jesus be resurrected, yet be without a physical body? He cannot have aphysical body in the Trinitarian ideal, because God cannot be impurified by outside substance, which that physical body is. Yet, in
Luke 24, Jesus told his disciples to touch and feel his body, because a spirit/ghost does not have a physical body as he had. Then in
Acts 1, the angels told the disciples that Jesus would return in the same way he left - which I presume would include his physical body!
You say that he cannot have a physical body in the Trinity? Why, can't he, and why are making statements on something you confess that
you cannot explain, while you are in so doing that? Also isn't it sin that defiles God? So if you were flesh that never sinned do you defile God?
BTW, we do view Christ as the Great High Priest, and that there are none greater than he. Since he is not currently active on the earth,he has called others to represent him and has shared his priesthood power with them (LDS).
So only certain individuals can represent Christ? I an many other Christian believe that every Christian has to take the responsibility to
represent Christ in our everyday lives. Thats why the sayings such as WWJD has come about.
Our view is that at some point there was a loss of the priesthood, probably a gradual loss, until the fulness was lost. This required arestoration of the fulness of the priesthood.
Who stated that the priesthood had to be restored? Joseph Smith? Well by his 1 false prophecy wouldn't this make him a false prophet and
so wouldn't you have to discredit what he said, in upholding what the Bible states about false prophets?
Jesus and God are one, in that they are one in the Godhead (a word used by Paul, whereas Trinity does not show up in the Bible). TheGodhead is a relationship of intense Agape love, where what one does, the others also do. Jesus stated he does the things he has seen
his Father do. That wouldn't make sense if they were the same being. Stephen saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God - was Stephen
deceived by the Trinitarian God? Or are they actually individual beings? Jesus prayed to the Father, stating they had separate wills -
something one would not have from the same Being.
Heres my question to this. If you can't get to the Father except through Christ and Christ stated that he was God, which one is more important?
(Being that you need one to get to the other.) And if you recognize them both as God you are now worshiping "many" Gods. Which in Isaiah
states that there are no other.
-
However, you are changing the subject. We don't worship the council of the gods. We worship God the Father, and my question of you was
can we dispense with worshiping the Trinity and simply worship God of the bible and if the answer is yes, then what is the point of the
Trinity.
Well, thats the deal. Jesus says that no one can come to the Father except through me. So Jesus must have some importance than just the
Father correct? What should you do then in honoring that?
-
I've heard it described as a shamrock leaf too with the three parts of the leaf but that is just being clever with imagery. It doesn't
make it an accurate description of the three people I know as three totally separate individuals.
It's late now and I can't start going into all the Biblical references to the pre-existence but one which immediately comes to mind is
when Jesus is asked 'who sinned this man or his parents that he was born blind?' Now I can understand the though that a blind child could
have been born because the parents had done something wrong but unless we lived before birth how could the man's own sin have been the
cause of him being born blind? Unless it is a reference to sin he may have committed in the pre-existence before he was born on earth.
I will try to remember to come back to this tomorrow.
(Incidentally Jesus pointed out that it was nothing to do with being a punishment for sin.)
Could you give the verse for this? I heard and read it before, but I don't see it mentioning a pre-existence. Couldn't the apostles just
be referring to his earthly parents? And how would you be able to distinguish the difference?
I believe that Jesus did pass it on. And this is why!The Savior said to the early Apostles, with Peter as the presiding head, “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and
whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” Peter,
as President of the Church, directed the calling of a new Apostle, Matthias, .......
Mat. 16:19 - 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in
heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
If you read the verses before that it seems that Jesus is referring not to Peter, but to something/someone else as if you read the verses the greek
word for Peter is "Petros" which is "rock" and when Jesus states that he will build upon this "rock" that word is "Petra" in greek. So
they are two different words so they couldn't be referring to the same thing as the word "Petra" is a feminine word for rock and I am not
sure, but I don't think Peter was feminine
. In those verses isn't Jesus answering the statement in which Peter stated who Jesus is?Rameumptom: Most of us have done just that. We are very aware of who Joseph Smith is, including his flaws. In fact, Joseph was aware ofhis own flaws, and was chewed out by God on several occasions in the D&C. And I'm sure if Moses or Jesus lived in an age of documents, we
would have thousands of articles critical of them, as well. The issue is that only God can reveal to the individual if He called Joseph
Smith as a prophet or not. I have received a spiritual witness of him and of the teachings and revelations Christ has given us through
Joseph Smith and his modern prophets.
Sorry I was talking Aelswyth when I mentioned what I said. Also doesn't say that Jesus came into the world not to condemn it, but that it
may be saved through him? So I don't think if he were living on earth that he would write thousands of articles to criticize people. Also
didn't you say that Joseph Smith being a prophet couldn't be reasoned with a just answer, but a personal question? I am not sure if it was
you or another, but why can't you reason with a just answer and facts stating if Joseph Smith was a prophet or not?
RAM: Prior to mortality, our spirits were literal created children of God the Father. We grew up as spirits in his presence,until the time came for us to be tested and to grow in greater knowledge. This required physical bodies to learn, and to be taken
out of his presence in order to learn to "walk by faith" as Paul put it. In Hebrews, Paul calls God the "father of our spirits." God
told Jeremiah that he knew him before he was formed in the womb. And we are told that our spirits return to Him who made us. This is
one of the key things restored in the last days through prophets - the knowledge of our pre-mortal spiritual relationship with God.
Doesn't it say in John that Jesus Christ is the only beggotten son of God? So how could we be too? Aren't we created in his own image as it
is sayed in Genesis? Also I have read the verse you are talking about (In Jeremiah), but I would kind of have to disagree with this because
couldn't you say an architect when constructing a building "knows" of the building before it is built, but that doesn't mean it was there
always, right?
RAM: the Bible is an awesome guide for all of us in our lives. However, it is missing plain and precious teachings, or the teachings arenot all that clear. The issue of pre-mortal existence is one example. To know that we lived with God before this life, is a wonderful
thing that helps me feel closer to God and my spiritual roots. The concept of deification is also mentioned in the Bible, but not well
spelled out, so that many Christians do not understand the concept - that we can co-heirs with Christ and reign with God on his throne.
Finally, I've mentioned the divine council of Gods on a few occasions, and that is not well known from reading the bits and pieces
left in the Bible, but are well known from the revelations of Joseph Smith[\Quote]
I do have some questions of the pre-mortal existence. (1) Where is it mentioned in the Bible , and (2) how is the critical to our salvation
or I mean, how is this a problem that needs understanding?
Being that we were "created" in Gods image, not beggotten, how could we have a pre-mortal existence? Also could you show me where
the Bible mentions Deifications of man and the council of Gods?
RAM: Just because it sounds like a Greek myth does not make it wrong. The Hebrew Bible obtained many of its teachings and beliefsfrom other cultures, including Greece. Did Paul not mention that the "Unknown God" was the God he worshiped among the deities of
Greece? And while the Bible makes mention of the divine council, one must go to other ancient sources to pull it out of the Bible so
that it makes sense. Job mentioned the sons of God and Satan going to challenge Yahweh. Isaiah 6 tells us about Isaiah before the divine
council. Then we have God in Genesis saying, "let US make man in OUR image." Many non-LDS Bible scholars have written about the divine
council, including Margaret Barker.[\Quote]
Yes, it seems that were you pull out the "Divine Council", I and many other Christians(Non LDS) take it as the Trinity. Also being that you say
a Divine Council there must be more than 3 Gods I take it? Where in the Bible does it mention more than the Trinity?
RAM: The Aaronic Priesthood was given to many individuals. Same with the Melchizedek Priesthood. Christ is a priest after the order ofMelchizedek, but not necessarily the only priest. Priesthood is an eternal concept. Revelation 1:6 tells us that Christ hath made us
"kings and priests unto God and his Father." The promises of being kings and priests extend into the next life, and we obtain the same
inheritance Jesus has, being heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ. Being the case, then if Christ obtained the Melch Priesthood, so
should we expect to also inherit it.[\Quote]
Yes, this is true, but this is because we are one with Christ you can read that in 1 Peter and I believe Corinthians it states that a couple
of times. And that we share what Chirst has. But would you disagree that Christ is the High Priest after the order of Melchizedek and
that there is only one High Priest?
RAM: Sadly, the example you give is NOT the Trinity as taught by the creeds. It is modalism, which was condemned by St Augustine as beinga heretical teaching. To explain the Trinity correctly, you would have to state there is one specific yolk in three eggs at the same time.
Yes, it doesn't make sense, but that's the mystery of the Trinity. The Trinity has 3 persons, not 3 substances, which is what your egg
analogy suggests, and is condemned as modalism.[\Quote]
Well, since you know the Christian Creeds better than a Christian does, would you mind explaining what the Trinity is? And no it is an example I am not saying that God is an egg.
Yes the Trinity has 3 persons, but one essence. Isn't that why Jesus said," that God the Father and I are one, if you have seen me you have seen God the
Father, if they were different how could he say these things?
-
Okay, dear Shadow, I'm done with this. I honestly don't think this can be a fruitful discussion, since you are adamant in your position
and aren't interested in learning anything else; your sole reason for being here seems to be to "prove" that you're right and we're wrong,
and your method of doing so is simply by regurgitating the usual Nicene-Christian interpretation of the Bible, all the while maintaining
that it is NOT an interpretation but rather the ONLY RIGHT WAY to read the scriptures. You ignore mountains of extra-Biblical evidence
that explains and expounds on various Biblical passages, because it does so in ways you don't like and don't agree with. You see only
the parts you want to see, and you read into them only what you want to read there, and you willfully ignore things that support our
position or deliberately misinterpret them in the most convoluted way possible. The fact remains that Biblical scholars have
discovered many, many things to support LDS doctrines, things that show modern "mainstream" Christian doctrine to be at considerable
variance with what the early church actually believed and practiced. So, if one person can only point to the Bible and their own
interpretation of it, while another can point to the Bible, their interpretation of it AND mountains of extra-Biblical evidence
to support it -- well, I know which side I'd be on. I don't find your tactics here to be a respectful position to take
on an LDS forum. I'm currently on semi-bed-rest to stave off a threatened miscarriage, so I think I'll spare myself
the aggravation and just say, thank you, I'm done.
Wow, I am sorry if you took my posts this way. The first thing I tried to keep in my mind was not to do what you are saying I am doing.And
well, apparently I have not bee too good to this and so I will try in later post to inquire more questions about what people say instead
of trying to point out the mistakes. So thank you for this post and I will try to be more respectful of other people positions.
If you still decide not to post anymore on this topic I would like to say thank you for your posts, I have enjoyed talking with you, and
I hope all goes well.
Also I really encourage you to research who Joseph Smith was as a man and a prophet, from the LDS, Christian, and 3rd party point of views.
The reason I am saying this is because the Book of Mormon pretty much lays on the shoulders of Joseph Smith and if he was right or wrong
is a pretty big deal, being that the Book of Mormon, D&C, and PoGP are at stake here. Again I would really encourage
you to read the criticisms and facts (Both good and bad) about him so that you may really know who he was.
IOW, we should look at the entire Bible as a potential metaphor? Do not believe what the Bible says, because it really doesn't say
what it meant? Does this also mean that we should look at the entire Creation as metaphorical, since the Day thing is obviously a
metaphor? And if the Creation was a metaphor, how about the Fall of Adam, or the Atonement of Christ? After all, there were several
early Christian groups among the Gnostics that did consider the atonement a metaphor, and that Christ-God did not die on the cross
(only the mortal Jesus did). They believed that Christ entered Jesus at his baptism ("Today I have begotten/chosen you") and that he
left Jesus to die alone on the cross ("My God, why hast thou forsaken me?").
Hey hold on, I didn't say that the Bible was a metaphor, you kind of turned my simple example over the whole Bible. I used the example to attempt
to explain eternity. I am not saying that eternity itself or the Bible is a metaphor. You know what, this is what you can do,
explain to me what the essence of eternity, and what eternity consists of. Then maybe I can get a hold of where you are coming from.
Yes Shadow Jesus was there from the very beginning. He was known as Jehovah in the pre-existence and is spoken of many times in the
Old Testament. But of course we were there with him in the pre-existence too. And he will be with us to the end because he lives now.
He died and rose again and is alive today. All Biblical.
Can you please elaborate on the pre-existence. I have heard Mormon's speak on this and I am still not totally understanding where they
are coming from when they say this.
I wholeheartedly agree in facilitate ‘…not everything is in the bible.’ There are about 5000 scrolls [more or less], either were over
looked, considered not inspirational or not necessary by the earlier apostated church clerics. One I do enjoy and frequently read is
the Book of Enoch. I have great affinity to this man works. Another is two works by the Prophet Abraham.
There are a few gospel topics I had asked in the past most here would deem it ‘outside our salvation’ and would hesitate to ask the
FATHER. These questions or answer given will not be found in either scripture BOM or Bible. Perhaps, later when the Savior will allow
those sealed portion of the BOM and other works be restored for man. Is this relevant to my edification? Yes! Will GOD, respond to the
sincere questions that are not written within the scripture? I would say yes.
I do not want to sound supercilious but to merely point out some answer cannot be found in our current scriptures.
Could you please explain what answers that are not found in the Bible? Because any problems that I have had, the Bible has been able
to help explain what I should do.
Do we have to believe in the nature of God as promulgated by the creed that came out of Nicea (a council called, organized,
presided over, and participated in by a violent and ruthless pagan), or can we just believe what the Bible says about God?
Yes, we can believe what the Bible says, that is what we are debating over. Is it the Trinity or a council of gods? Because a "council"
of Gods sound a bit like Greek Mythology to me. And could you explain where in the Bible it states this?
To clarify a bit about the Priesthood.
Jesus was not the last person to hold the priesthood while he lived on the earth.
St. John 15:6 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your
fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
Yes, he was not the last one as the Jews (and LDS) still use the Aaronic Priesthood. Now the Melchizedek Priesthood Christ is the one
who has it. He never died and so never passed it on correct?
The Hebrew term translated 'God' in our scriptures is a plural term. 'Eloheim' literally means 'Gods' or 'Great Ones'.
'In the beginning Gods created the heaven and the earth.' Argue its implication all we want, but the 'im' which signifies
plurality is there and its use is not uniformly singular throughout the Hebrew scriptures, for example Genesis 1:26.
Yes, this is true. The thing is that you are not understanding what I beleive to be the Trinity, the best example that I was taught with
and many other too, is the Trinity is like an egg, you have the yolk, egg white and shell. All three are different, but one being.
-
I do not see anywhere in the Bible that states God is outside of time. In fact, Peter tells us that 1 day to God is the same as
1000 years to man. If we take Peter at his word, we must admit that God IS within time, just not at the same speed as we experience
with time. If God dwells by Days, regardless of the length, then he dwells within time. If God rested on the seventh day, then does
that not show that he experienced something He called resting during a period of time called a Day?
Ok, no it doesn't state it word for word "God is out of Time" in the Bible, but there are many explanations for this. For example you
said that he rested on the seventh day and are saying that he must be in "day" , so therefore in "time" or some type of time. Well let me
ask you this. If you were eternal and out of time how would you describe that to someone in time? You would of course use time to explain timelessness.
For example if I were to explain what the ocean was to someone who never seen a large body of water, would be pretty hard to use terms that
are associated with the ocean. To explain it I could say the ocean is a gathering of a large amount of water and that you can't see the
other side, I could also say that it can reflect the sun like a mirror in the sunset, and on windy days have large sharp hill like "waves".
Now does this mean that the ocean is an endless mirror with hills on it?No it doesn't by any means.
I used the mirror and hills as an example to explain something different, something that he hadn't seen ever. Now how does this explain the
seventh day? Well if he said he created everything in some order according to him it would be hard to grasp, but if he said I took 7 days on
earth then it is easier to grasp how long it took.
-
It must take some mighty mental gymnastics to wring that interpretation from this scripture. Have you even glanced at the surrounding
passages which provide the context? I guess I need to post the whole thing:
"A good tree is unable to yield wicked fruit, and a rotten tree to yield good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut
down and thrown into the fire. So then, by their fruits you shall know them." Matt. 7:18-20
The tree is the person, the fruits are the works. This states that if a tree (person) is not producing good fruit (good works) it will
be cut down (separated from God's covenant people) and thrown into the fire (sent to Gehenna for destruction). Let's move on:
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Master, Master', shall enter into the reign of the heavens, but he who is doing the desire of my Father
in the heavens." Matt. 7:21
Only those actually living a Christ-like life and following the commandments will see Heaven, not just anyone who says "I believe in
Jesus!" Very clear. Next:
"Many shall say to me in that day, 'Master, Master, have we not prophesied in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and done
many mighty works in your name?' And then I shall declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you who work lawlessness!'"
Matt. 7:22,23
Here we have Christ himself again saying that it's not enough just to throw his name around all the time and perform these kind of
empty "miracles" like prophecy, exorcism, speaking in tongues, snake-handling etc; one must follow the commandments or it is all in
vain. The import of the last sentence may be obscured in some translations of the Bible, but the Greek word in the original is
anti-nomos meaning antinomianism or "lawlessness", which is the doctrine that one need not actually do anything or obey the
commandments to receive grace. Here, in black and white, are the words of Christ condemning those who profess the doctrine of
antinomianism (grace not works). And just to establish it a bit further:
"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine, and does them, shall be like a wise man who built his house on the rock, and
the rain came down, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, and it did not fall, for it was founded on
the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine, and does not do them, shall be like a foolish man who built his house on
the sand, and the rain came down, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat on that house, and it fell, and great
was its fall."
This states once again the necessity of doing, not just believing or professing. See also the story of the rich young man in
Matt. 19, wherein Jesus informs the man that in order to have eternal life, he must follow the commandments and additionally
sell all his possessions, distribute the proceeds to the poor, and join the disciples in following Christ. Not exactly, "Just
accept me as your Savior and you're good to go, buddy!"
This is true you can't just say you believe you have to do what he says. But it doesn't say you are saved by them. For example if you
have faith in someone, you believe what he says correct? Well, if you don't do what he says can you really say you believe what he says?
No, you can't. That is why you do what he says, not as works, but because you believe what he said is true. You aren't saved by works,
you are saved by grace. You can't be saved by both, it then would not be grace would it?
Look, you seem stuck in one interpretation of the Bible, and who knows, maybe you've only been taught that one way from birth
and honestly can't perceive it any other way, but truly, there are many, many other ways of seeing things, as amply demonstrated
by the numerous denominations of Christianity upon the earth today. Clearly many people differ in their views. Although you find
the text to support your idea of the Trinity, there are many others who find support for other views, and all can be understood to
some degree. And although you interpret the text to support your view that there is only one Entity belonging to the class of being
called "gods", I must point out that there are numerous passages demonstrating that accepting the existence of other gods is a
Biblical view, and in fact most Bible scholars and historians agree that an understanding of the heavenly council of gods ruled
by our Heavenly Father is present throughout the Old Testament and also throughout much of the New Testament pseudepigraphia.
"God of gods" is not just a meaningless title.
Could you give me a list where it says there are more than one true God? And yes I believe I could be wrong, but you could very well be
too and you haven't given me any solid ground for me to consider, but what you feel and I am sorry, but that isn't enough. Also maybe
you were taught from when you were born, because I wasn't, I wasn't saved until my later years so I was taught and expirenced alot of things
before I was born.
All this is simply your own theorizing. None of it is in the Scriptures. You may personally find it compatible with your interpretation
of Scripture, but it's still just conjecture. You're going way beyond anything the Bible says, and so it seems this discussion is a
bit pointless. I can't dispute your personal theories unless they're mainly rooted in actual scriptural texts. My views are derived
from explicit statements in both the Bible and LDS Scriptures, taken largely at plain meaning and extrapolated as little as possible.
You've taken a few vague statements in the Bible and spun a hugely theoretical eschatology that appears to be mainly the product of
imagination. I don't disagree that it's a possibility, but so are many other things; and we're not talking possibilities, you're
trying to convince me your eschatology is the only correct one, that it's the absolute truth. I simply don't see any solid basis for
it whatsoever.
Am I going way beyond the Bible? The whole spirit children and how Satan is Jesus's brother, and how we may one day become God is way
beyond the Bible and it seems that you except that as truth, but it isn't even spoke of in the Bible, it is actually spoken against.
What was the serpents temptationt Eve? You can become like god by eating the forbidden fruit, knowing both good and evil. Also you can't
believe wholly the LDS doctrine and the Bible as it contritdict like it is going out of style. I can give you a list if you want.
This is always a funny thing to me. Ask a Jew or Muslim what he thinks of the Trinity, and he'll tell you that it is another term for polytheism!
The Bible teaches a pantheon of Gods. The earliest portions of the Bible are based upon the Divine Council of Gods, with El Elyon (God Almighty)
as the head, and his divine sons, including Yahweh. Isaiah 6 has Isaiah seeing the Divine Council. Job 1 has several sons of El Elyon go to test Yahweh
for preeminence over Israel.
The reason they call it polytheism is because they are 3 seperate beings, I and many other christians believe the Trinity to be one
inseperatable being. It states it over and over in the Bible.
16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.
Amen.
He says he is with us always. So he must have been there in the beginning and will be with us in the end. Jesus has been there always
and so has the rest of the Trinity. Jesus also states that you know God the Father through Christ and that God the Father and Jesus are
one.
Where the Lord says he is the only God and there is none before nor after him, refers to the Divine Council. 70 sons of the divine council were given earthly
kingdoms. Yahweh was given Israel. Next door in Canaan, the divine son Yam fell and was replaced by Baal. Referencing this, Yahweh was stating to Israel:
I am the only God of Israel; there never was a God before me nor after me (or, I wasn't replaced nor usurped power from another god to obtain my place as
Israel's god).
So you are here saying that you believe in many Gods? Then why does it say that God knows no other gods, not even one, this it states in
Isaiah. Are you saying that God's knowledge is limited to just his own presence? If so then we would have to question what does he actually
know. Also the post made by Aweslthew (spelling may be wrong) says how I am going way outside the Bible, but the whole thing on how Yam fell
and was replaced by Baal and a Devine council that is equal with God is way beyond what I am saying and way outside of the text of the Bible.
Also you need to note that god the name is also given to men/creatures of great power, as Satan is considered the god/ruler of this world and
the kings of the earth and such have also been given the term "god". So this is where you might be mistake as there is a council of "gods".
-
Okay, I get what you're saying. I understand your view point and how it all hangs together. But, I disagree with your conclusions
and don't see them supported in Scripture. I think most Christians would agree with me that there is a single, final Judgment Day
for all souls, not a separate one for each. I've rarely heard anyone espouse the idea that each soul undergoes final judgment
immediately upon death. One point that immediately presents itself to me is that such a system would seem to make death itself
rather pointless. What happens, you die one day, you're buried, and then the next you're resurrected and off to Heaven or Hell?
Do you believe in the bodily resurrection? Most Christians do, and I haven't noticed any reports of mysteriously empty coffins
lately.
Out of curiosity, what scriptural passages do you see as supporting the idea that each soul undergoes final judgment immediately
after death?
Again here you are stating the law of Time. God created time and so in not apart of time itself.
For example say you are writing a story
about Mary. You start writing this sentence, "Mary started to go to sleep then, ....", you here the phone ring, and so you go answer the phone and
forget about the sentence and then go have lunch. You come back and see that the sentence wasn't finished and so finish saying, " she heard a
knock at the door", now there has been about 2 hours between the start and finish of the sentence, but for the person in the story, it has been
maybe 2 minutes or so.
Here is another example if you look at a time line you will see a long line of dates. You look at then and they are all present to you. As
you can access any of the information at any time without have to wait (you dont have to wait 20 years to read what 1920 has to say and what
1940 has to say). God is like the person in front of the time line, everything is present and so when people die they come out of that
"time" of which we are apart of. Now yes everyone will be judged at one time. But you must understand that we reason in time and day
God has no time and day. That like saying after you die, I have to wait "x" amount of years in spirit in a spirit world before I am eternal in spirit. You
are then saying time only applies to certain "spirits" and that there are different stages of "spirits" and that some "spirits" must change
again to become eternal. This is not so.
Also where does it say this in scripture. It says it when God says he is the Alpha and Omega beginning and end. He is the First and the Last (Alpha and Omega)
and in time you have a beginning and end. To reason this is to try to reason outside of what God created for you to reason with. For example
if you read the book "The theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein" he has a section that goes over what he believe to be time and the
characteristics. He almost was able to describe it in math, but as you have noticed he and no other have been able to find the exact equation.
Thank you Jonboy. I see the point. Still not convinced, though; why would spirits be "outside time"? Are Satan and his demons outside
time? And even though we're talking about the perception of time, rather than the passage of time itself, that would still involve
being somewhere for that "blink-of-an-eye eternity", wouldn't it? We have been taught that the Spirit World is right here on earth;
so it must still operate under earthly time. I don't see any evidence that spirits are outside time. If they were, what would be so
terrible about spending a "blink-of-an-eye" in spirit prison? Heck, that wouldn't be so bad.
Are Satan and his demons outside of time? Yes, they don't "age". They are eternally separated for God and to be so they would have to be
eternal themselves. Now about the spirit world thing. When you say a blink of an eye in a spirit prison that wouldn't be so bad. Well you
have to do to things on this. You are trying to compare 2 different "realities" if you will and so to go on with this you would have to say
well spending a blink of an eye in hell isn't bad. But there has to be some type of "experience", for it there was not experience you couldn't
have torment or joy. Now how do you explain how "experience" works in Heaven or Hell, I really have no idea, to tell you the truth I haven't been
there yet
. -
Shadow, can you tell me how Jesus, who did not possess the Aaronic Priesthood, was able to baptize and perform many of the works he did?
It is because God called him as a priest after the priesthood of Melchizedek. God chose how he was going to establish His order. Why
doesn't the Bible tell us? Because the Bible doesn't have all the answers. It does tell us that God reveals his secrets through prophets
(Amos 3:7), which is exactly how he did it in Jesus' day, and in our day, as well.The key is finding out whether God can
change things through a prophet. The Bible shows time and again that He can. Prior to Moses, many performed priesthood functions.
Originally, God planned to take the first born male of Israel to make a priest, but gave the function
to the Levites, instead. Given this change, it is clear that God could change it as often as he wishes. It is, after all, His priesthood and authority.
We learn in the D&C that the Aaronic Priesthood is an appendage to the Melchizedek Priesthood, and its purpose is to prepare the people
to receive the Melchizedek Priesthood. That's how it worked in Moses' and Jesus' days, and that's how it works now.
Oh, sorry I noticed I didn't answer this one
. This would be simple. Christ was able to do this because he was God in flesh. He doesn'tneed the Aaronic priesthood, he was PERFECT and sinless and so would not need to be saved from sin. Now no God can't just change the
priesthood when every he wants. He only established one to man until Christ came to fulfill the Melkizedek priesthood.
Also no it doesn't work that way. Christ is forever eternal and so doesn't pass the priesthood, so until Christ dies eternally he will never
change the priesthood. And since he is eternal he will forever be our High Priest.
What was left of the civilization of the Nephites after being exterminated by those apostates and pagans? What do you think happened
to all those cities? Wasn’t the Lamanites, nomadic by culture; just walked in and inherited city after city? Do you not think over
time there would be changes made to those Nephite cities? What happen after the destruction of the Nephites? Did the Lamanites turned
in upon themselves and began a civil war? Who was left after this incident? Currently, the City of Nephi resides beneath a much larger
city – not far from the waters of Mormon. Some findings that had been seen are striking in revealing such facts if you visit in person.
Now, go to Google maps and view the southern portion of Mexico and type in Zarahemla.
There are some in the church, as there are out of the church will deny that the Book of Mormon portray the cities in this part of the world. I beg to differ.
Many times in life, approaching those items that ‘fancy’ our intellect in searching for the answer, will come after our trial of faith, and through maturity
in receiving such a worthy answer.
Now, whether or not Joseph Smith is a prophet, needs to be a personal answer. Saying so without a ‘just’ answer is foolish and immature
intelligence.
Now you are being out there ... Just because you say the Lamenites (Who we have no solid evidence for their existence) were nomadic they
would have left the city alone? If they destroyed it there would be ruins. Or are you saying they moved every stone out of place and moved
them across America so that no one could find any evidence that they ever existed?!? This would be so far out there. Now maybe we couldn't find any? Maybe, but sooner or later
you would find something, we been here some 300 years in America can we have one
artifact for evidence? I mean is that too much to ask?
Yes, I do believe that
they would have changed, but they would not be erased from the earth. We are talking about Mayan size temples here. These are HUGE
and if they built these you think we would find one ruined one. We actually have no trace whatsoever of them.(Well except the Mayan ones of course
)Joseph Smith being a prophet isn't a personal answer. Have you ever head the saying, "With proof like that who needs evidence?" That is
what you just said. Actually I took the God given ability of reason and said he isn't a prophet.
Ever heard of Unitarians? They're Christian. They don't believe in the Trinity.
There are also many Evangelical Christians who hold to Nontrinitarianism.
The Christadelphians are Nontrinitarian.
Here is a nice little quote from the Wikipedia article on Nontrinitarianism:
"Although some denominations require their members to profess faith in the trinity, most mainline denominations have taken a
"hands-off" policy on the subject of the trinity, realizing that since personal study and free thought have been encouraged for
years, it is not surprising that some of the conclusions reached would be nontrinitarian. The recognition here is that the trinity
is a tool for pointing to a greater truth. In other words, Christianity has historically sought to look beyond its doctrines
(see Apophasis) to the greater truth they are intended to address, i.e. God. It is not uncommon for a Methodist, Presbyterian, or
Anglican to profess non-trinitarian views, even among the clergy. The response from the governing bodies of those denominations is
usually neutral, so long as the disagreement is voiced in respect."
I would also point out that there have been General Authorities of the Church, and other prominent Mormons, who have indeed espoused
an understanding of the Trinity and even used the term in their writings.
Don't you think it's a little arrogant and, well, unChristlike to decide for yourself who is and isn't a real Christian? I think
this calls for a few words from Christ himself:
"Do not judge, lest you be judged. For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged. And with the same measure you use, it shall
be measured to you. And why do you look at the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not notice the plank in your own eye?" Matt. 7:1-3
"Not everyone who says to me, "Master, Master," shall enter into the reign of the heavens, but he who is doing the desire of my Father
in the heavens. Many shall say to me in that day, "Master, Master, have we not prophesied in your name, and cast out demons in your name,
and done many mighty works in your name?" And then I shall declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from me, you who work lawlessness!""
I humbly point out that this could just as easily refer to you as it could to me; so maybe we should leave all the judgments about
who is or is not a true follower of Christ up to him and his Heavenly Father.
And why do you look at the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not notice the plank in your own eye?" Matt. 7:3
- This should answer your
question. It is saying don't be a hypocrite. If you are going out and stealing cars don't preach that no one should steal cars.
"Not everyone who says to me, "Master, Master," shall enter into the reign of the heavens, but he who is doing the desire of my Father
in the heavens. Many shall say to me in that day, "Master, Master, have we not prophesied in your name, and cast out demons in your name,
and done many mighty works in your name?" And then I shall declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from me, you who work lawlessness!"
This right here says why you can't be saved by works. They were able to cast out demons in Jesus Christ's name and yet they could not
enter heaven. They also did mighty works and still not.
Also no it is not my thing to say you are not a Christian, but when you deny the Trinity you are denying one of the greatest aspects of God
and saying you believe in more than one God which is polytheism, which the Bible states that there in only 1 God and he knows
none other.
-
BTW, Baptism for the Dead WAS practiced by a few early Christian groups. Paul mentions to the Corinthians that some Christians
were baptizing so that they would rise again (1 Cor 15:29). Among the early Christians that baptized after Paul are the Marcionites.
One Pauline church in Ephesus that still stands and is cared for by Eastern Orthodox priests has back-to-back churches. Both sides
have benches and a baptismal font. One side is for all people, and the other is only for members. Why have a baptismal font in a
members-only chapel? The EO priest will tell you that they performed baptisms for the dead. This still is part of the Eastern Orthodox
Church's belief, though they do not practice nor teach it anymore.
I would hope those making firm claims on this list would first do their homework and research beyond what their pastor tells them.
It would greatly reduce the amount of clutter in the discussions based upon wrong claims. While people can still disagree as to
whether the current Christian church should practice baptism for the dead, it is ridiculous and/or ignorant for anyone to claim that
it was not practiced by early Christians.
Ok, just because "other" christian are doing it doesn't mean it is Biblical. Extra things I really don't have much to say for. I totally disagree
for the baptism for the dead because once your dead, the game is over. There isn't any need for it and the Bible doesn't say you need to
do it. If you do it I don't believe your cultic, just wasting your time. But then again it is your time to waste according to free will.
Also I would apprciate if you would state that I need to do my home work. If you are a mormon you would really have no idea where I am comming
from. As I listen to what you have to say, listen to me. Also I never said they didn't baptise for the dead, I said it isn't Biblical. That
is a major difference.
More to the point, where does it say it no longer exists? Since it clearly did exist, and since all indications are that it continues to
exist (such as the prophesied Judgment Day), I believe the burden of proof is on you to show that somehow it has simply vanished from existence.
I'm curious, if you do not believe in Paradise/Abraham's Bosom/the spirit world, then what on earth do you think happens when people die?
Obviously, if they don't go to the Spirit World, they must go either to Heaven or Hell. Since the Judgment is not until the last day, then the
destination cannot yet be based on any final worthiness; so either everyone goes to Heaven (an impossibility since no unclean thing can enter the
presence of God) or everyone goes to Hell (not exactly just OR loving, wouldn't you say?).
Ok, this I have to say is a good question. Notice when you say in the last day, this doesn't imply the last day for God, but us. God is
eternal and so don't have a beginning or end, and in do have this ability is not governd by time. So when some one dies they are judged and
the reward or condemnation is given instantaiously. How is this? Because God is forever present (Due to no time he is never old), right now
is just as new as yesterday and tomorrow will be. So in a sense when you die you will be at the end of days(for you). Being that we are
governed by time. Now how does this apply to Abraham's Bosom if you had to wait for Christ to save you? Well you had to "wait" because you
could not go to heaven. To answer this accuratly you would have to answer this question. If you are now not governed by time and there is
no time, how long do you "wait"? This is like saying how long is eternaty and how long will it feel to you?
Clearly, the only way to reconcile end-time prophecies with a just and loving God is the continued existence of the Spirit World, i.e.
Abraham's Bosom. Just because Christ freed the captives who were there at the time of his death and resurrection does not by any stretch
of meaning imply that the place itself ceased to exist. If you free all the inmates from a prison, does the prison magically vanish? Do
people stop committing crimes and being sent there? Of course not, on both counts. People have not stopped dying since Christ came, so
there is still need for a Spirit World where we can dwell until the Great and Terrible Day of the Lord arrives. If you do not believe
this, then how do you explain the final judgment?
Also God is just and loving, yes. But this don't mean what you implied it to mean. Because God is just, you fear him because he cannot let
sin go on without being punish for if he let sin slide, he may be good to you, but now not just. And actually we all deserve to go to Hell,
that is why Christ came so that we may have to ability to go to heaven.
Well you kind of used a poor analagy for that. In the prison thing. It is almost like this. Say you everyone over on earth was dirty. And God
didn't want you to mess everything up and so contructed a temperery motel that you could "stay" at until Christ was to come over and say
God is ready for you to come over to his Hotel where he was able to put down some plastic covers so you didn't get dirt all over the place.
Now everyone can go to his Hotel because he has done the neccassary work so you don't mess it up. This doesn't mean that the old motel has
to be torn down. It just means no one has to stay there any more. (I did this one on the fly
so you kind of have to forgive me). -
Shadow, can you tell me how Jesus, who did not possess the Aaronic Priesthood, was able to baptize and perform many of the works he did?
It is because God called him as a priest after the priesthood of Melchizedek. God chose how he was going to establish His order. Why
doesn't the Bible tell us? Because the Bible doesn't have all the answers. It does tell us that God reveals his secrets through prophets
(Amos 3:7), which is exactly how he did it in Jesus' day, and in our day, as well.The key is finding out whether God can
change things through a prophet. The Bible shows time and again that He can. Prior to Moses, many performed priesthood functions.
Originally, God planned to take the first born male of Israel to make a priest, but gave the function
to the Levites, instead. Given this change, it is clear that God could change it as often as he wishes. It is, after all, His priesthood and authority.
We learn in the D&C that the Aaronic Priesthood is an appendage to the Melchizedek Priesthood, and its purpose is to prepare the people
to receive the Melchizedek Priesthood. That's how it worked in Moses' and Jesus' days, and that's how it works now.
This is without meaning. Most of the cities of Israel were still known throughout history, and weren't lost. And even with this accuracy,
it does not prove the prophecies or miracles in the Bible. Nor does it prove Jesus' godhood. They've found "proofs" of the Book of Mormon,
as well. The location of Nahom has been found, as well as the Arabian Bountiful. These were lost for centuries, and not easily known in
Joseph Smith's day (if at all). But we're aware of them today. That's more impressive than saying, "here's Jerusalem exactly where the
Bible says it should be", when Jerusalem has always existed and been known to men.
The Bible prophecies of prophets working in the last days. The only question is whether Joseph Smith is a prophet of God or
not. If he is, then your arguments over priesthood are moot.
Well, here you kind of took it at face value. There are many cities that were "lost" in the Bible. For example Jericho,
and they have almost 100% found Sodom and Gomora, they were able to find through the clues of the Bible. Now why haven't they found the great and
might city of Zerahemla the capital of the Neophite Empire? It isn't only bigger, but older and more advanced than Jerusalem. They
had HUGE temples, like the Mayan, but we can't find those, why? How about the Lamenites, the ones who conquered them? And also where are the
cities of Nahom and the Arabian Bountiful located?
Another thing here I wasn't saying this proves Jesus, but it does give us the thought that maybe since all this evidence is true that
maybe the rest of it might be to, where as in the Book of Mormon, there is pretty much no Historical evidence whatsoever
Now the question comes up. Is Joseph Smith a prophet? This has to be a yes or no answer, no maybe answers. I have to say that by the evidences
in the Book of Mormon, I would have to say no. He said he saw God the Father, which in the Bible it clearly states that you cannot. There
are some 3 or more stories of the appearance to Joseph Smith. From just angels, to God being there, to just
Jesus being there. I mean you think if something that great happend you would never forget it. Also he is the only prophet to bring a "New" book
that contridicts the Bible in more than one place.
Another quite interesting thing to know is if you watch the new LDS video(the one they published) on Joseph Smith, they portray him as a "Lamb lead to the slaughter".
Also the tour guides of the Carthage prison speak that way, that all they had was canes to fend off the people.
Thats great and fine, but if you read the church history (the one the LDS published) it states that he basically died in a gun battle. He
wounded 3, killing 2. He was smuggled a 6 shooter pistol into his cell before the incedent. This kind of says alot about the LDS church.
Also in situations like that you can tell
what a man is like.( In the unexpectated or dire circumstances, not in every day life.)
They also state that they found the Talismen of Jupiter on Joseph
Smith after he had died. Maybe it didn't mean anything, but the Talismen Of Jupiter is an artifact of cultic, satanic
background, that really doesn't make sense for him to be wearing it. (It is used by people practicing Wikka, but the true background comes
from Egypt and it comes from the worship of other gods.)
Did I miss something here? What part of the Book of Mormon are you referring too to prove your assumption? Don't be haste to judge.
Do some research of ancient cities dated that are found in the eastern part of the Yucatan Peninsula and compare to the western portion.
Something drastically happened to the land mass. Also, use the same comparison of ancient cities found going south to Columbia.
There is something to note here, when we talk about these empires we are not locolizing them. These are regional empires, comparable to the
Roman or Greek empires. So there should be some evidences beyond the local, to refrence some type of existance. For example the Nephites
are almost like the Jews, as they document alot of stuff, why can't we find any documents?
What we view today as Americas [some features changed] land masses, were not the same features found before the death of Christ.
Members usually look at the map of today and expect it never changed since the first man. Even during the time of Noah, there some
changes to land features of earth that we view today prior to the flood.
Ok, I agree with you on that, but didn't Jesus suppossedly come to them? That means America would have to have some very drastic land mass
changes in about 2000 years. Actually not only drastic in local areas but nation wide where you couldn't even reconize the old America. It
is just imopossible.
Actual Native American artifacts were found around the ‘the hill’ by local farmers and still more can be found if you time, devotion,
and allowed to do so. These artifacts may have nothing to do with that last stand [large scale battle] as some think.
You fail to answer what I stated, I am saying there isn't just a few here and there. There should be collosal amounts. For example there
should be some 2,300,000 coins. This would be only if every soldier had only 1 coin. It states that they had an advanced coin system. Why
can't we find just 1? We have been here for some 300 years, you think we could have found 1. (How long do we have to wait for the smallest
of evidences?)
Though, I never understood why people refer the hill as Cumorah when the prophet just calls it a hill. The original hill can be
located in below the border. Where? That is still being debated on which Cerra. If you go on to Goggle Maps, zoom in to Southern Mexico,
type Cumorah in the search box for proposals.
This is what I mean, they don't know where it is. Pretty much every city that is mentioned is being debated on where it could have been. (the
ones I am referring to are the ones that are supposed to be located here in America)
Changing the topic, I won’t begin to tell you about the Mounds being found throughout North America with skeletal remains that exceed
the normal human height of today. . Who do think the Mayans, Olmecs, and Toltec [others I failed to mention]
parents? Then we have a corrupted language that was not a Nephite origin since the Lamanites mixed with the remainder of the Jaredites,
later with the Mulekites, and apostated Nephites. I would expect the these Lamanites after warring among themselves, make changes to
the original way of life by each predecessor claimed king.
The skeletal remains by no means conclude that these could have been Nephite orign. Also you state that they could have made changes to
the original way of life. This is true, but there is not way that they would have abbandond everything and lived like the Native Americans
lived. They were able to create metal armor, had an advanced coin system, were able to build huge structures, and much more. How and why
would they give this up to live almost a nomadic life style.
Now the Mayans and Aztec civilizations were "advanced", but not nearly as advanced as the Nephites were or the Lamenites, they would have
had to go back in time to become the Aztec civilztion. It would be the first to ever be done as far as I know.
No, he said that he did not believe in the God of the Creeds of modern Christianity. That's a major difference.
Exacly my point. What is one of the most debated creeds of Christianity and Mormonism? The Trinity.... The Christian's belive that
God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are one in being, while the Mormons deny it. That would mean that you do not believe in
the same God as Christians.
-
Ok , Misshalfway where in the Bible does it say that everyone can aquire the Aaronic Priesthood. Because if anyone know more about that it would be the Jews, as they still practice it today, according to the Law given to them by God. (They don't believe Christ came so still practice as if Christ had not come yet.)
You're not answering my points, you're merely restating what you've already explained. You are explaining
the OLD Aaronic priesthood as it operated under the Mosaic Law. No one is disagreeing with you that that is no longer relevant.
What I'm pointing out is that just because it no longer operates under the same laws DOES NOT mean it no longer exists. When a
company restructures, does it cease to exist? No. You have failed to address my basic argument that Christ has modified the law,
rendering the sacrificial elements obsolete and overhauling the priesthood rather than eliminating it altogether. Please show me
the Scriptures which disprove this argument. I don't believe there are any.
The definition and role for the priesthood's are the definition of why one cannot co-exist with the other one. If it is just a
"Title" then there is not reason to debate. But that isn't the case. There was a role and responsibility for each one and each
one's role and responsibility are against each other. That is why Christ came to fulfill the Law and make a new covenant. He
fullfilled the law and in the new covenant we are neither saved nor condemned by it, but by it we know sin. (Paul Stated this.
For example if I were to tell someone that water (H20) could only be in the state of ice or gas at a given time not both. If they did
not understand what Ice or Gas was or the states of water it would be difficult to say why they could not co-exist, but in the definition of the ice and
gas states of water you find out why they cannot co-exist just in the definition, there would be no sense in trying to have a "logical"
debate on that. And that is what I am trying to say. In the purposes that each priesthood was to serve, makes it unable to co-exist.
Once again, no one is disagreeing with this premise; where we differ is only in our belief in the continued, though modified,
existence of the Aaronic priesthood alongside the Melchizidek.
Once again you are missing the point, I am stating their roles because to understand why they cannot co-exist one would
have to understand, (1) Why they came to be, and (2) what where they established to fulfill. Because we must all agree
that they were not established just for the sake of it
. Okay, this is where some basic Biblical and historical knowledge comes in handy. First of all, every Scriptural reference to
"the resurrection" logically indicates that there is a spirit world where we wait for that resurrection. This place is referred
to variously as Sheol (the grave/underworld), Abraham's bosom (i.e. the place where our ancestors await us), and Paradise.
"Paradise" comes from a Persian word meaning a walled garden - it's basically the Persian version of the Garden of Eden (the
Hebrew phrase "gan 'eden" is literally translated as "enclosed garden of delight"). "Paradise" does not refer to the place where
God is (Heaven), it refers to the pleasant place where good folks go after death and before resurrection; there also is the unpleasant
"spirit prison" for those who are bad. There are cognates in the Eyptian "Reed Fields" and the Greek "Elysium", both sections
of the underworld set apart as places of delight for the spirits of the virtuous dead. Among early Christian Fathers, both
Irenaeus and Origen made the distinction between "Heaven" and "Paradise", with Origen describing Paradise as "an earthly 'school'
for souls of the righteous dead, preparing them for their ascent through the celestial spheres to heaven."
Christ did not ascend to his Father on the day he died; he descended to Sheol, Paradise, the spirit world of the ancestors,
where he preached to the spirits in prison. That is what he meant by telling the thief he would be with him that day
in Paradise. He did not ascend to his Father until after he was resurrected and appeared to the disciples. So would you then
make Christ a liar?
Yes, I know he did not go straight to the father, but he when down to Abrahams Bosom. When he went down there he set
the captives free. They are now no longer there, but in heaven. Abraham's Bosom is no longer because Christ died and went
down (just as you said) and saved the captives. Also you did not answer my question, where in the Bible does it say it still exists to
this day?
I'm interested in knowing what religion we are talking about here. The Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ teaches eternal principles
taught by God's prophets from the beginning of the world. The Bible is not the fulness of God's teachings. We need additional
witnesses to understand the truth. Otherwise we have the confusion that exists in the world today.
Now this is interesting that you brought this up darrel. Here, I believe you would be referring to the modern day prophets, the Book of Mormon
and the other such books that the LDS use. I would like to state that I am coming from a Christian point of view, not an LDS view. I have
personally read what I consider enough of the book of Mormon. The reason why I do not refer to the book of Mormon on my spiritual difficulties
or theologies because just like Aelswyth, I love History, I read it for enjoyment and for my spare time, and when I read the book of Mormon pretty much
all of the history is just out there with not archaeological evidence whatsoever. Now I am not saying that there needs to be evidence for everything
just at least a couple of things, maybe at least one thing. But I don't find it anywhere in the Book of Mormon, except the parts that reference to the Bible.
Here are some things that I find hard to believe:
Not one of the Neophite cities have been found or traces of the Lamenities. Also a lot of the information regarding the Americas
are totally out on its own, that is why there is no maps in the back of the Book of Mormon stating the geographic locations of the ancient
cities that they often refer to. The reason of this is because the LDS church cannot decide on the correct one. I actually encourage you
to look at the purposed maps of what America looked like according to the Book of Mormon and you find that it doesn't even look anything
like modern day American.
I have read and studied everything even down to the hill Commora (Think I spelled it right) itself. Where there
should be some 10,000,000 + artifacts, this would include skeletal remains of the two battles (around 2,000,000), if they wore helmets that
would give us another 2,000,000, if they wore breastplates - another 2,000,000, if they wore shin guards -another 4,000,000, this does not
include the the swords and/or spear heads, arrow heads (if they had archery), or skeletal remains of horses that they said they rode into
battle with(Which there is convicting evidences that there were not before the Europeans came over). It seems with this staggering number that
there would be at least 1 artifact recovered. And this is just in 2 battles.
I haven't even began to explain all the other statements in the
Book of Mormon, such as the advanced coin system it states that they used (1 coin is yet to be found), the HUGE Mayan temple like structures
they said they build (Actually in the beginning of the Book of Mormon there is supposed to be a very accurate picture of what it looks like-
A Mormon that works in the Temple stated that it was an accurate picture).
Also where are the Neophites capital Zerhamemla? How about the Lamenite cities?
Now, I believe that the Word of God, the Holy Bible, is the fullness of God to man. There has been no other book written that is even close
to any other. It has been used to find old cities, actually I believe almost all the cities in the Bible have been found or are still
inhabited today. There are detailed maps of the Bible in the Ancient times. And there are some, what most people considered to be advanced
science in it. Science that would almost be impossible for any man to achieve at that time. (Such as the 4 "Wind Belts" that circulate the earth.)
Please don't take this information as I am trying to "kill" Mormonism or try to smack people in the face, but instead what I am trying to do
is put myself in a position as a spectator. My goal is to find the right religion not for me or what I want, but for the sake of getting to
heaven. I am sure all of you are, to a certain extent degree agree with this. But it comes down to that there are no 2 truths. And I want to know
the what truth is the correct one. And finally I am stating these facts so that if anyone has any objection that I may read into it and in
so doing, gain more knowledge.
-Shadow
-
Okay; you can't have it both ways. Either Christ was able to change/amend/update/override the old laws and old covenant,
in which case he could certainly amend the requirements for the Aaronic priesthood, or he was not able to change anything,
in which case he could not have created a new covenant and ushered in a new priesthood to override the old one. So which is it?
He can modify the law, or he can't? I think most of us here will agree that Christ has certainly shown himself capable of
modifying the law and arranging HIS priesthood/s any way he wants to. Just saying the priesthoods were in two different
covenants does not even remotely demonstrate that they cannot co-exist.
Actually it would, and is exactly why one overrides the other.
Many things from the old covenant co-exist with
the things in the new, without tearing the fabric of the space-time continuum. And even before Christ came, the two existed
together, so why can they not now? Your argument makes no sense. If you can show logically (not just with opinion) why they
cannot co-exist, and why they cannot be held by whomever Christ chooses to hold them, please explain it.
1st to explain why they cannot co-exist you will need to understand the meaning and use of each one. The Aaronic Priesthood was given to the
Levites to offer sacrifices for the sins of man and to continue in doing so as long as man sinned (Which is indefinite, until Christ comes
back). The Aaronic Priesthood had to offer pure sacrifices for the sins, it couldn't just be any thing you wanted. In Beliving this priesthood
you would still need to offer the blood sacrifices needed to cover the sins of man according to Moses and the Aaronic Priesthood. To say accept
that the Aaronic Priesthood is to still be honored, is to to say that Christ's sacrifice on the cross is not sufficant for your salvation
and that you still need the sacrifices of the Aaronic Priesthood to be cleanse of sin.
Now this is where the Melchizedek priesthood differs from the Aaronic. Jesus Christ hold's the "new" priesthood and "new" covenant
which states that Jesus's pure sacrifice was sufficent for everyone and it is the last and final sacrifice for sin.
As for this, you misunderstand the statements about immortality. Yes, people will be mortal in the Millennium, but when they "die",
instead of going to the spirit world to wait for the resurrection, they will be instantaneously transfigured into their immortal
bodies. It's really just the skipping of the middle step of waiting in the spirit world for resurrection. People will still be
just as mortal as they are now, until they die and that transfiguration takes place. So then, yes, there will be a mixture of
mortals and immortals, as the Millennium goes on.
As for this where in the Bible does it state that? As far as I know it doesn't state anything in the Bible about a Purgatory "like" place unitl
Christ comes back. Christ did that when he Died on the Cross. It was called Abraham's Bosum, he let the captives free there. We know this to
be true that there is not "holding tank" til Christ comes back because he says to the theif on the cross that he would today be in paradise.
-
Ok, we are going in two different directions.
Their can be only one priesthood. Because they both are different. The Aaronic is governed by the Law of Moses, which cannot give mercy,
and you have the Melkizedec that can give mercy. They both cannot co-exist because they are in two different covenants. Christ created a
new covenant which ushered in a new priesthood to override the old one. The reason for this is that Christ's covenant over rode the old one.
Second if you were to have the Aaronic Priesthood you have to be the age of 25 and not only do you have to be a Levite, but you have
to prove it yourselves. You cannot just claim it. So if you were to do that, most of the LDS are not even qualified for it. So it wouldn't
even be an option. But that is not so, because the Aaronic Priesthood is gone.
Now the Millennial Reign.
That is a little different and I not sure on how we got onto that subject. But never the less it is still important. I believe and I believe
the Bible makes this clear that there will be a generation that does not die. Due to the returning of Christ. Also during his reign not everyone
will be immortal as there is supposed to be a rebellion after the 1000 years when Satan is loosed upon the earth and that their numbers will
be as the sand of the Sea and that they will try to destroy God. So if everyone is immortal how could they be destroyed? And how do they multiply if
they are immortal? The book of Revelation makes that pretty clear, there will be mortals and immortals co-existing.
-
I'm gonna borrow this one from NateHowe in another thread:
The words of the current Prophet are intended for our day specifically. New revelation can overrule the policies of the past, even those accepted by previous prophets. If we are to believe in Jesus Christ, this is not difficult to believe, because His words overruled Moses and previous Prophets. Similarly, the law God gave Moses was different from the revelations given to Adam and Noah.
A good example in modern times is the 1978 revelation that encouraged ordination of all worthy men to the Priesthood. It was granted for the time when it came. It was not the policy of previous Prophets, but it was given for a specific reason in the Lord.
Well there are some problems with this statement and that is when did Jesus speak against what Moses said? I know he added things like murder was now told to be hating within the heart, but I didn't see anything that was against what Moses said or any of the other prophets. If you could show me some instances that would help.
Also I agree that the old law of Moses was overruled, we are not saved or condemned by the Law of Moses (We are shown what sin is though), but this is now here is the interesting thing. The LDS modern prophet said himself that the Law of Moses had been overruled (In your statement above), which would mean that what it governed would also be overruled. And in so doing the Aaronic Priesthood would had to have been overruled and done away with, just like the Law of Moses. But even when he said this, the Aaronic Priesthood is still being observed when it is supposed to be overruled just like its governor, the Law of Moses was overruled. So now the question is, is it up to you on which part of the old revelation(s) have been overruled, and which have not? Because if that is what he said, that is what is going on.
-
..and I'd have to say prove that 'cause... I know that it is said NOWHERE to that fact. He has stood side by side with Christian leaders and acknowledged that we all pray to the same God.
Before I answer that question I had a question of my own and that was, can a LDS president/apostle/Prophet contradict other former or current LDS presidents/apostles/Prophets ? And if so which one would be correct?
-
Shadow-Vs.11 it say's perfection wasn't by the Aaronic priesthood. That different than saying the Aaronic priesthood is no longer needed.
An imperfect priesthood can still be needed.
vs.12-I don't see it as saying that because of the change the old priesthood had to cease to exist.
We would agree with the change in priesthood the law did not apply to that priesthood.
Vs.13-We would agree on verse 13.
Vs.14-We would agree on verse 14.
Vs.15-22-We would probably agree there also.
vs.23-Mortal priesthood can have many priest's in the High priest's office. But with Melcizedek and christ both being priest's that pretty much destroy's the one High Priest at a time rule.
Although the term High Priest was anachronistic to Melchizedek's day Jesus was called to a priest's office equal to his. so to me although the high priest term was created later both men served
as high priest's. But i have heard verse 23 used to say we can't have many priest's anymore.
Vs.24-I have heard it mean's untransferable. I have seen that meaning rebutted in another two word studies i have seen.
Vs.25-28-doesn't preclude Jesus from having to make new priesthood by law. We arn't under law. Jesus can make mortal priesthood if he wishe's and Moses law no longer has a say. High Priest's
today are of the Melchizedek office. The Aaronic priesthood was quite changed when it was brought into the Restoration by modern revelation.
Jesus and Melchizedek share that priesthood. What verse in Hebrew's 11 prevent's Jesus from further sharing their priesthood with other's? Technically Jesus could not have the
priesthood because Melchizedek never died. (Hebrews 7:3) He shared it with Jesus without transferring it. Both men didn't ever give up their priesthood.
First, sorry it took so long to reply and I will try to answer the easiest way possible.
I will go over what and who Melchisedek is(as far as we know) and then I will go through what you said.
Who is MelChisek:
(Heb. 7:1,3) His is King and priest of Salem. (This is also been know to be similar to Christ)
City of Salem
Salem is an ancient name for Jerusalem.
The Two Theories of Melchisedek as a Being:
The two theories of Melchisedek is (1) he is an incarantion of Christ before he came or (2) he is just a mere mortal that was barely mentioned
in the Bible, but has some type of importance.
Melchisedek being eternal:
(Heb 7:3) States Melchisedek as being an eternal being and without mother or father.
-To explain this accuratly one has to go back 2000 years in the eastern world of literature. When they say he has no mother or father this
could be explained by his mother and father wasn't documented or his geneology being obsured. This isn't very uncommon in secular literature
of the time.
For example:
Senceca, in his 108th epistle, speaking of some Roman Kings, says: "Of the mother of Servius Tullus there are doubts; and Ancus Marcu is said
to have no father".
You could look up tons of docrine on this and this doen't mean he too didn't have a father, its just not documented.
This could also be applied to him being eternal.This expression could indicate that his birth and death were not recorded, being that the Jews were responsible for that
time to document the priests that were of Levite descend and they had to prove that they were of at least the age of 25. Now being that he
wasn't a Levite, the Jews would have rendered him not a priest and so would've took no heed to him. That could explain why there are no
descendence recorded of him.
So Melchisedek could have been two different things and no one can be 100% sure. I have read and departed phrases into the original greek and
it is almost impossible to decide on what he was because there are scripture that supports both ends of the argument
but, we can conclude that he was a King and Priest. This debate could go on forever (and it has so far
), all we need to know is that Jesusholds the priesthood, Melchisedec being the second one to hold it is a life long debate in its self, for there isn't adiquit information to
fully 100% understand who he is (For if he was Christ himself there would be only one, if he was a mortal he would have died.).
*Note if he was of crusial importance the Bible would have more information on him and there are several people who did not die that
are mentioned in the Bible in far more detail than Melchisedek.
Why would God Replace the Aaronic Priesthood:
There are several reasons why this would happand and I will elaborate on the main 4 reasons.
First,
With the change of the law there would have to abe a change of the priesthood. Because under the las of Moses, God appointed the Levietes to be the priests.
This would restrict alot of people from being priests just because there were not Levites. Also when Jesus made the new covenant, he needed to change the priesthood
also. A new law required a new priesthood.
Second,
The Aaronic priesthood could not make anything or anyone prefect and the Aaronic priests could only serve for a short time (They started
at the age of 25 and had to "retire" at the age of 55- I believe right around there) and since Jesus lives and will never die he can serve as
our priest for all eternity. So the Aaronic priesthood had to be done away with because of the flaws due to the men that served it.
Third,
The Aaronic priests could not save those who came to them, Jesus though can save all who come to Him.
Fourth,
Also the Levites had to offer up sacrifices daily to cover the sins comitted. Jesus offered up his won sinless body to be the
sacrifice. This is the one and final sacrifice needed and so in doing so all who come to Him may be saved.
This is why the Aaronic priesthood had to be changed. It was imperfect and so needed to be changed with a perfect one that Jesus Christ holds.
Also you mentioned that it wouldn't stop Jesus from making a new mortal priesthood. No it doesn't, but this is why the Aaronic priesthood was
done away with the first time(It was flawed because mortals served it). Why would he put up another flawed priesthood when he could hold
the perfect one?
You also stated that we are not under the law. You are correct we are not, that law was done away with along with the Aaronic Priesthood(Which the law that
was done away with governed), andJesus made a new covenant on which the Melchisedek priesthood is established on. Now, the law serves as a school master and
identify what "sin" is and why we need Christ.
I hope you understand, thank you very much for your time and please further elaborate on what I said. I quite enjoy Bible discussions.
-
I do not see you as intending to misrepresent Mormonism.
Ok, let me go over the priesthood verse by verse. I will use Hebrews 7:11-28 and I will go over topic by topic being that the post would be too long to try to go over every topic at the same time. Also thank you very much for going over all that.
Here it starts (This is the KJV)
11.)If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
Right here it is stating why would there be another priesthood after the order of Aaron if the priesthood of Aaron was perfect. This question is stating, that it wasn't perfect and so another had to rise after the order of Melchisdec.
12.)For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
Here it is stating because the priesthood had to change from Aaron to Melchisdec that the old law (The law that Aaron gave) had to change, being that there is a new one.
13.)For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the alter.
Now it is sawing that the new priest came out of a tribe that the priesthood wasn't give to.
14.)For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothign concerning priesthood.
By this verse it is stating that the "new" priest came out of a tribe that Moses never spoke of, the Tribe of Juda having the priesthood.
15.)And it is yet far more evident: for that after similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
16.)Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
17.)For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
18.)For there is verily a disannulling of the cammandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness therof.
19.)For th law made nothing perfect, but the brining in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.
20.)And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:
21.)(For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not
repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec)
22.)By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
23.)And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
24.)But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
So it goes on to state that Jesus Christ lives forever and so in doing so has an unchangable priesthood. He doesn't give transfer it because
he never dies.
25.)Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
26.)For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separeate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
27.)Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifec, firest for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
28.)For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.
So I believe right here it is black and white that Jesus Christ has the eternal priesthood authority and he doesn't change it because
he never dies. And this is not a narrow minded deal or translation. This is what a lot of Christians believe, actually to be truthful I never heard of the priesthood authority taught as being something that was given to people until I start talking to the LDS missionaries.
-
However, the original post was asking for clarification on LDS doctrine, not other Christian doctrine. If you are not LDS or do not have knowledge of LDS doctrine, then spouting off your own beliefs is counter-productive and does not satisfy the query of the original poster. In the future, make sure your answers line up with the question that is asked.
I am sorry but if you read the question he/she doesn't declare who they are talking to. Also they bring up verses from the Bible, which being a Christian that is the only Holy book that I study and so said what I and many other Christians believe. Also yes I am very aware of LDS Doctrine. I have a lot of questions regarding that. Would you mind me bringing up some questions on some of the Doctrine since no one is bring up some questions on what I said?
Darrel- I firmly believe the precepts of men mingled with scripture are what most "Christian" Churches teach today. How else could so many different religions teach so many different concepts of God and Jesus Christ.
Here is something that is very well misunderstood. Yes, there are many different teachings in different churches but what you fail to see is the differences. They lay only in the works not in belief. For example the Baptists might believe that you need to be baptized, where as another church might disagree in this, but they will both come out and state that they will both believe in the same foundation of Christianity. That we are saved by Jesus Christ alone and yes, in Christianity all the Christian churches will state that they believe in the same Jesus Christ as the rest of Christianity. The only time this is not so is with the LDS Church.
-
Zing! You got me, Shadow. Actually, I don't understand the point of preaching stuff contrary to LDS belief on an LDS forum. I'm not trying to be mean in saying this, but you aren't going to convince anyone that their religion is wrong. There's no need to "educate" us or "enlighten" us.... we believe what we believe because we think it's true. Some of us will even go as far as saying we know it's true, and not out of arrogance or self-affirmation... but out of conviction and in the spirit of sharing what's made life a joy to live. There are many things in this faith that the world would say are controversial, but that's where the principle of faith comes into play. Start from scratch. Read your scriptures. Pray about them. Offer up all the desires of your heart to God and he will tell you if what we believe is true or not. The Holy Spirit is the bearer of ALL truth, so have no shame or fear in seeking what you really need to know.
Preaching things Contrary to the LDS belief may be the case. But I know quite a few LDS believers and they say they believe in the Bible too (One works in the Temple), and all I am doing is quoting the Bible. The Chapters in Hebrews that I quoted states in black and white that the priesthood is held by Jesus Christ and none other can posses it because he is eternal. If you refer to why the priesthood was transfered, it was because the old priest was restricted by death (But Jesus Christ is not). So maybe I am stating things that are contrary to the LDS belief but it stands in line with the Holy Bible (which is what the LDS missionaries carry with them on their mission trips).
So you would have to make a stand here.... Is the Bible correct or LDS Doctrine? There are many other instances where the LDS Doctrine doesn't match with the Bible (You could review my first post on this thread - that sparked some excitement
), so on all those you will still have to make the same decision. Also please note that I am not stating these things to "Get people", if you have any problems with what I am stating then, please let me know what is wrong and state why I am wrong and we can go over this together, instead of just stating that I am not in line with LDS Doctrine.
-
Here are some more quotes by the Apostles of the LDS Church,
"And virtually all the millions of apostate Christendom have abased themselves before the mythical throne of a mythical Christ."
-Apostle Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 269
"Several church councils, in which men fought for their own theories, foisted upon the Church the incomprehensible and unnatural doctrine of "one in three and three in one." . . . This false doctrine, which has been nurtured through the centuries, in an excellent illustration of philosophical-theological error and nonsense."
-Apostle John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations 1:58
"Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange a God anyhow - Three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization .... All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God - he would be a giant or a monster."
-Joseph Smith
"To those who are bound to defend the amass of confusion in the creeds of Christendom, the concept that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God is totally incomprehensible.They are baffled by their beliefs, confused by their creeds, unconverted by the incomprehensible. Their only recourse is to glory in the mystery of godliness and to suppose there is something wonderful in worshiping a spirit nothingness that is neither here nor there any more than he exists now or then. The total inability to know God becomes the most basic tenet of their religion and closes the door to that
progress which lead to exaltation and Godhood."
-Apostle Bruce McConkie
Here are some fine examples that Mormon's don't believe in the same God as the Christians do. And also before you call me a liar please reference your doctrine.You should know it better than I do.
My purpose here was to answer the question(s) that were posted at the beginning of this thread.
If you could please point out exactly what offends you, please let me know and let me know what your biblical support is and we can go through it together.
-
I am very sorry for putting that up without explaining from where I am coming from. I am bringing this information from a Christian perspective, not from an LDS (Mormon) point of view. This is probably why it is different from what you have been taught. If you have any questions about what I said or any Bible verses that contradict what I said, I would most willing go through them with you.
Oh, and also you may be saying that Christian doctrine and LDS doctrine are the same and I will have to say Hinkle said it himself that he did not believe in the God of Christianity.
-
To which I refer to my previous post. If the Bible has been altered then that would also mean that the 5 books of Moses were altered. I thought I was specific enough. I apologize if you didn't understand me.
First I would like to say look at the Dead Sea Scrolls. They have, I believe almost the whole old testament. And the ones that they have are still in exact translation with the King James today (Besides a few words that have been changed due to language translation). Also for the New Testament I believe they have almost 1000 copies that dates before Julius Caesar (Actually they date about 30 years after Christs death, maybe even closer) and they match each other. So really I don't believe they have changed. The bible was written over 3 Continents, in 2 languages, and written by men of every class. You can't just "change" a little here and there. It then would not make sense at all. The Bible references itself too much.
Some interesting doctrines of LDS
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
Yes, I will admit the point do go right passed me because I asked you to provided Bible verses that support your claims and
you fail to do so. You say that "it says it in the Bible", but fail to state in what verse. Until you add Bible verses to
your statements I will continue to by pass them, with your own saying, "its just your interpretation".
What scripture have you shared? I didn't see you reference any verses? Maybe I missed that, I know you stated a chapter, but
I had to read through it and find which verse you were talking about. Also you think I am "twisting" verses to support what
I say? I shared with you the Hebrew/Greek words along with their definition so that there would be not confusion. I did it
so that you could take it "literally". And there are many other verses that support that. I am yet to see any verses that
you have posted that stated how there are many Gods, how eternaty is just my own theology and how God is apart of time, how
Joseph Smith was right on how the US Civil War in D&C 87 was actually a World War, and Jesus's false prophecy. To me it seems
that you tend to state alot of facts, but you refuse to supply the verses that I am trying to kindly request of you.
Is it anit mormon? If I try to make a statment of what I read and it disagrees with mormons is it anti mormon?
Would you then kindly supply the other missing half of the statement and the verse reference to which I happend to miss?
I am not playing nicely? You have tried to frustrate me with your sarcasm, you have tried to attack me personally, and yet
I am not playing nicely? You also stated that Jesus made a false prophecy and still haven't gave the verse in which it states
that, and when the other poster got angry, you step back and say its our fault? My question is how are you playing nicely?
The God of common Christianity is a false construction of men. An incomprehensible nothing. No wonder President Hinkley
denied it. Study the doctrine/history of the doctrine of the Trinity, compare it to the scriptures you & I share, and prove
to me that they are the same being! You cannot! It's impossible! Thank God for a living prophet, to declare the truth.
Actually if you take all the verses where it states that God the Father is the only God and there
are none other (It He states of any kind, regardless of power and posistion) than Him, you must have the Trinity, because
Jesus is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. Yet, how can there only be one? That is why the Trinity is accepted by
many Theologians and Christians. Yes, you have eye witness accounts of many in the Bible that says that Jesus was at the
right hand of God, but when God himself is talking and stating that there are no other gods besides I, then I would go with
what God said, then what man said.
But the only theory of mormonism that is out there that is attempting to destroy the Trinity is the teaching that man could become God.
The reason it is not so is because if man becomes God, (1) God is not eternal, (2) God is not all knowing (as he had to
"progress"), (3) that there are millions of Gods (which then you must state why does God state the he knows of none
other?), (4) God created evil (it is stated by LDS that we are here on earth to expirence and go through trials), (5) then God states
good not because its good, but because he said (then you would have to question what is "good" and what is "bad".. is it all opinion?)
, (6) who was the first thing to become God and how was the "trials and qualifications" defined, and (7) where was he able
to learn through the trials? (If a planet there must have been something before him).
Also God being out of time could be read in the 1st chapter of Genesis, where it states the end of the first day. Because
if he created the first day then he must have been there before the 1st day correct? If so couldn't one conclude that Time
itself or the time for the human race was not applied to God before the 1st day? If so couldn't He still not be bound to out time?
*For a couple of verse, I have posted them in earlier posts.