Cherub = G-d

[Jason]

"But why would the Lord create a spirit and deny it the agency and earthly experience that is his plan."

Because God didn't create Angels to be human. That is His plan.

"There are just too many missing links in Constantine Christianity."

Name one?

[porterrockwell]

I know you don't believe in a pre-existance or that we are the spiritual seed of our Heavenly Father, but we are. And being of his substance it makes no sense that all would not be given AGENCY and the ability to exercise that which governs our existance by Celestial Law. That is the first thing that Orthodox Christians do not understand.

"Men are that they might have joy." And joy can only come through subjection of the flesh and it's flaws. To insinuate or adhere to the standard that one would be spiritually created without the ability to make a choice as to his opportunity for a tabernacle of flesh is to insist that man has no agency here or beyond the vail. Were Adam and Eve not given given a choice as too eating of the fruit? Was Satan and one third the hosts of heaven not given a choice as to their first estate?

Satan does not want us to know, nor believe that we can become like the Father, or have an Exaltation likened unto the Father. He does not want truth, nor the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to fill the hearts of men. When the subscription of foolish "Orthodox Constantine Christianity" is applied, in that instance, for that individual, that group, that organization....he has won(whether for a moment or for the duration of their mortal probation).

How can one follow the familiar voice of the Father, if he had not known previous to his journey in the flesh, the presence and love of the Almighty God?

We walked, talked, and were loved by him(and still are), it's sad you don't understand that.

[Jason]

"I know you don't believe in a pre-existance or that we are the spiritual seed of our Heavenly Father, but we are."

Source please?

"And being of his substance..."

How did you come to the conclusion that we are of the same substance as God?

"... it makes no sense that all would not be given AGENCY and the ability to exercise that which governs our existance by Celestial Law."

Who says that Angels don't have their agency? While we certainly cannot prove one way or the other, that still doesn't support your theory that Angels were created to have mortal bodies.

"That is the first thing that Orthodox Christians do not understand."

That's because it's not a teaching of Christ. You made it up.

"Men are that they might have joy."

I've always enjoyed that saying by Joseph Smith. I think he did a good job writing the Book of Mormon. It's at least as good as Tolkiens "Lord of the Rings" series. (IMO)

"And joy can only come through subjection of the flesh and it's flaws."

Why do you think that?

"To insinuate or adhere to the standard that one would be spiritually created without the ability to make a choice as to his opportunity for a tabernacle of flesh is to insist that man has no agency here or beyond the vail."

There is no insinuation here. You have no Scriptural support for your theory. You assume that the only reason to be created is to have a human body. That everything in the Universe was created for the sole purpose of being born on this planet as a human man or woman seems a bit arrogant on your part. If you care to back up your insinuations with Scripture, I would be willing to discuss further.

"Were Adam and Eve not given given a choice as too eating of the fruit?"

Yes. What does that have to do with the Angels who were created for a purpose seperate from ours?

"Was Satan and one third the hosts of heaven not given a choice as to their first estate?"

While I don't believe in a "first" or "second" estate, it would seem that Lucifer/Satan had a choice to remain an Angel of God, or to turn "his" back on God. But again, you are assuming that Angels were created to be Men. There is no reason to assume that Angels were created to be Men.

"Satan does not want us to know, nor believe that we can become like the Father, or have an Exaltation likened unto the Father."

Funny, but the last time I checked, Mormon theology still taught that Lucifer gave the fruit of the tree to Adam and Eve so that they might become "like the gods, knowing good and evil". Has the temple ceremony changed in the last few years? As for Christianity, we don't believe that we will be "gods" or a "god" or any such heretical thought. We accept that we will partake of Christ's glory, and become perfect like GOD is perfect. That does NOT mean that we will be gods. There is no reason to believe in such a theory.

"He does not want truth, nor the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to fill the hearts of men."

I agree.

"When the subscription of foolish "Orthodox Constantine Christianity" is applied, in that instance, for that individual, that group, that organization....he has won(whether for a moment or for the duration of their mortal probation)."

Your use of the Emperor Constantine's name in conjunction with Christianity seems to indicate that you believe that Christianity changed when Constantine championed the Faith. Apparently you don't accept the fact that God controls the nations, and uses leaders of men for his own purposes. I recommend you study the Old Testament and learn about how God manipulated Pharoah, Nebacudnezzar and others for His purposes. Furthermore, I could just as easily call your faith of becomming "Harrison Mormonism," since your church capitulated to the political pressures of US President Benjamin Harrison.

"How can one follow the familiar voice of the Father, if he had not known previous to his journey in the flesh, the presence and love of the Almighty God?"

So you assume that we cannot follow Christ unless we existed before we were born? Is that your belief? I disagree wholeheartedly. When Christ said: "Come, follow me" he did not say: "If you remember your existence before birth, then come and follow me." We can learn to follow God in this world just as we learn to follow the council of our parents. There is no need for a pre-existence.

"We walked, talked, and were loved by him(and still are), it's sad you don't understand that."

Nothing sad about it. It never happened. But that doesn't preclude the fact that we ARE loved by God, and will one day be allowed into His presence if faithful.

[Ray]

Traveler:  Your logic if flawed. You say that Cherubim cannot be g-ds because G-d is greater.

Jason: No. I said that the Bible teaches us that there is only One God. And that cherubim are not gods because there is only ONE God.

Jason, I think you missed the point Traveler was trying to bring up.

You believe Jesus and our heavenly Father are both God, correct?

Do you also believe Jesus is the same “being” as our heavenly Father?

They are both one, but our belief regarding the manner in which They are one is different.

Traveler: Now read John 14:28 "....for my Father is greater than I". Therefore according to your logic Jesus is not G-d or even a g-d."

Jason:  Wrong. John 10:30 says: "I and my Father are one." Jesus is God the Father incarnated as the Son.

Jason, please respond to John 14:28.

Do you believe our heavenly Father is or was greater than Jesus, or not?

If Jesus was somehow less “great” than our heavenly Father, was He still God anyway?

And what do you mean by “incarnated”.

Do you believe Jesus is the same “being” as our heavenly Father?

Do you believe Jesus existed before He was born to Mary in Jerusalem?

In the beginning, when God created the Earth, was our heavenly Father talking with Jesus, or was our heavenly Father talking to Himself?

And in the garden of Gethsemane, when Jesus prayed to our heavenly Father, was He only praying to Himself?

God is either “yahed”, one being with multiple personalities, or “ehad”, multiple beings in unity with each other. There is no other option, and no greater mystery to those who don’t know.

Traveler:  Now in your mind, since Jesus is not as great as the Father and therefore not G-d or a g-d, is He greater than the cherubim?

Jason:  Your mind works in mysterious ways..............

Jason, did you have trouble understanding Traveler’s question?

Jesus himself said that our heavenly Father was greater than Him, and yet we know They are and were both God. Isn’t it possible that cherubim are also God, even if not as “great” as our heavenly Father?

Personally, I believe that cherubim are the classification of angels as close to God as possible, yet for some reason still not God.

I also believe that the offspring of God are classified as either God, Angel, or Man, with each being created from an order of intelligence. Each of these beings can also be classified generally as God, though, because all of these beings are the offspring of God.

The question now is, since “we” or “they” are all the offspring of God, can Man or Angel evolve or continue to develop until becoming like God?

Traveler:  P.S. You have not responded to the scriptures saying Satan is a Cherub and also that he is a g-d. You seem to have trouble understanding the distinction between a g-d and the G-d.

Jason:  Satan is called "the god of this world". That is true. Yet Holy Scriptures also teach that there is only ONE GOD. Therefore, anything that is not THE GOD, is a false god. Which is no god at all.

This reminds me of another scripture in John 17 in which Jesus referred to our heavenly Father as the “only true God”. Do you suppose that Jesus was disqualifying Himself as a “true” God by saying that? What do you suppose Jesus meant by that?

Let’s go back to what I stated about the offspring of God being classified as either God, Angel, or Man. A fallen angel is still an angel, and a fallen man is still a man, though maybe not as true or “perfect” as a “real” one, but what is the standard for determining whether an Angel or Man is “real”. And what is a “false” God, or a “real” or true God? And please, don’t give me names. I’m asking you to give me some descriptions here.

[Jason]

Ray,

First, let me say that Im glad to see you join in on the discussion.

"You believe Jesus and our heavenly Father are both God, correct?"

Correct.

"Do you also believe Jesus is the same “being” as our heavenly Father?"

Yes. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1)

"They are both one, but our belief regarding the manner in which They are one is different."

Yes, mormons believe that the Father and the Son are one in purpose only.

"Jason, please respond to John 14:28."

Ok. Let's put it into context. Beginning in verse 6:

'Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?

Then in verse 28:

'Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.'

Theologians have long debated about the nature of Christ. Most feel that Christ was both God and Man. When he exhorts his followers to follow the Father, he is speaking as a Man. But on other occasions, he clearlys points out that He (Jesus) is the Father. In my view, since we already know that Son is the Father, it makes this verse much less difficult to understand. The way i see it, Christ is leading by example, and exhorting his disciples to continue to pray to God, though like His baptism, he had no personal need to do so.

"Do you believe our heavenly Father is or was greater than Jesus, or not?"

Christ was not created. He was from the beginning as John 1:1 states. Christ taught that he was the great "I AM" of the Old Testament. The Great I Am, or Jehovah, is the same person as Christ. They are ONE.

"And what do you mean by “incarnated”"

The Word took upon himself Flesh and became the Son. God is a Spirit (John 4:24).

"Do you believe Jesus is the same “being” as our heavenly Father?"

That's what Jesus taught. So, yeah, I believe it.

"Do you believe Jesus existed before He was born to Mary in Jerusalem?"

Christ was not created. He has always existed (John 1:1). Christ was not created in the womb. Furthermore, I do not accept the LDS theory that God the Father had sex with Mary and impregnated her.

"In the beginning, when God created the Earth, was our heavenly Father talking with Jesus, or was our heavenly Father talking to Himself?"

Good question. I believe that the Father/Son God was speaking in such a way so that we could understand the process. That does not mean that there is more than one God, or that God was specifically talking to some "helper". God does not need assistance to do anything. I might also point out that the Genesis narrative was plagerized from a pagan source that likely came from either the ancient Sumerians or some other early semetic culture. The Hebrews adopted the popular narrative, and pretended that it was their own (possibly to add credibility to their claims on uniqueness....). I personally do not accept that the narrative is literal.

"And in the garden of Gethsemane, when Jesus prayed to our heavenly Father, was He only praying to Himself?"

No. Christ taught that He was God. Christ had no more need to pray to the Father than He had need to be baptised. But he did it for us. He followed the commandments to show us the way.

"God is either “yahed”, one being with multiple personalities, or “ehad”, multiple beings in unity with each other. There is no other option, and no greater mystery to those who don’t know."

It's not a mystery if you accept the teachings of the Bible and God's Church. To limit your understanding on the semantics of Yahed and Ehad is to ignore various other passages where Christ teaches that He is God the Father.

"Jason, did you have trouble understanding Traveler’s question?"

No. Christ and God are the same. Therefore, Traveler was making an assumption that I thought they were different. They are not.

"Isn’t it possible that cherubim are also God, even if not as “great” as our heavenly Father?"

No. The Kirabu are ministers doing God's will. Period.

"Personally, I believe that cherubim are the classification of angels as close to God as possible, yet for some reason still not God."

Ok.

"I also believe that the offspring of God are classified as either God, Angel, or Man, with each being created from an order of intelligence."

You're implying that God has sex to create?

"Each of these beings can also be classified generally as God, though, because all of these beings are the offspring of God."

If I build a computer, does that mean it's a man? Or that I intend it to become a man?

"The question now is, since “we” or “they” are all the offspring of God, can Man or Angel evolve or continue to develop until becoming like God?"

There is only One God. There is no need for more than One God. Why do you think we even need more than one Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omnicient being in the universe?

"This reminds me of another scripture in John 17 in which Jesus referred to our heavenly Father as the “only true God”. Do you suppose that Jesus was disqualifying Himself as a “true” God by saying that? What do you suppose Jesus meant by that?"

He was reminding his disciples that any god that is not God, is no god at all.

"A fallen angel is still an angel, and a fallen man is still a man, though maybe not as true or “perfect” as a “real” one, but what is the standard for determining whether an Angel or Man is “real”."

While I've already disagreed on what Christ meant in the previous verse you quoted, we can still explore this on it's own merit. I see it as black and white. You are a man or you are something else. You are an angel, or you are something else. Perfection is a discussion for philosophers. Ask them.

"And what is a “false” God, or a “real” or true God? And please, don’t give me names. I’m asking you to give me some descriptions here."

There is only ONE GOD. Therefore, anything that is not God, is not a God. How's that? I don't know how to simplify this issue any further. Every god is false that is not the ONE GOD.

[Jason]

I thought that this might be helpful in understanding the Trinity:

100 AD Ignatius of Antioch - "There is then one God and Father, and not two or three; One who is; and there is no other besides Him, the only true [God]. For "the Lord thy God," saith [the Scripture], "is one Lord." And again, "Hath not one God created us? Have we not all one Father? And there is also one Son, God the Word. For "the only-begotten Son," saith [the Scripture], "who is in the bosom of the Father." And again, "One Lord Jesus Christ." And in another place, "What is His name, or what His Son's name, that we may know? " And there is also one Paraclete. For "there is also," saith [the Scripture], "one Spirit," since "we have been called in one hope of our calling." And again, "We have drunk of one Spirit," with what follows. And it is manifest that all these gifts [possessed by believers] "worketh one and the self-same Spirit." There are not then either three Fathers, or three Sons, or three Paracletes, but one Father, and one Son, and one Paraclete. Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make disciples of all nations, commanded them to "baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," not unto one [person] having three names, nor into three [persons] who became incarnate, but into three possessed of equal honour." (Letter to the Philadelphians 2).

[yaanufs]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Jul 14 2004, 05:51 PM

100 AD Ignatius of Antioch - "

Clearly my Bible studies are not up to scratch. I don't recall any of the disciples with the name Ignatius.

Are we being asked to accept as evidence and clarification, the opinions of a philosopher or an apostle of Jesus here? If I post a quote from another philosopher/academic that contradicts your quote would that help the situation?

[Jason]

Ignatius was one of the Church Fathers. He was Bishop of Antioch. Here's a clip from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

St. Ignatius of Antioch

Also called Theophorus (ho Theophoros); born in Syria, around the year 50; died at Rome between 98 and 117.

More than one of the earliest ecclesiastical writers have given credence, though apparently without good reason, to the legend that Ignatius was the child whom the Savior took up in His arms, as described in Mark 9:35. It is also believed, and with great probability, that, with his friend Polycarp, he was among the auditors of the Apostle St. John. If we include St. Peter, Ignatius was the third Bishop of Antioch and the immediate successor of Evodius (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", II, iii, 22). Theodoret ("Dial. Immutab.", I, iv, 33a, Paris, 1642) is the authority for the statement that St. Peter appointed Ignatius to the See of Antioch. St. John Chrysostom lays special emphasis on the honor conferred upon the martyr in receiving his episcopal consecration at the hands of the Apostles themselves ("Hom. in St. Ig.", IV. 587). Natalis Alexander quotes Theodoret to the same effect (III, xii, art. xvi, p. 53).

[yaanufs]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Jul 14 2004, 08:05 PM

Ignatius was one of the Church Fathers. He was Bishop of Antioch. Here's a clip from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

I still don't really see the merit of posting up a quote from someone who is basically just another religious fellow, who was not one of the twelve, from a long time ago, as a means of backing up your point of view. Underneath it all, are you trying to claim he carries more weight to his view because he lived close to the time of Jesus?

Does this open the debate up to quoting other religious scholars. Eventually someone will claim that all the scholars are not to be trusted and we can only quote from the Bible.

[Jason]

Saint Ignatius was acquainted with the Apostles themselves. His views are held in just as high regard as any of the original 12. I'd say that qualifies.

[porterrockwell]

One thing that must be remembered is that one, regardless of standing with the 12, he did not possess the authority to act as they.

My Branch president is in great standing with the current 12, was ordained by them to provide council to those in need, and grew up around those like Truman G. Madsen, and so on. Still he is not a member fo the 12 and issues and ordinances of the Gospel are still handled by the 12, he does nothing out of his mantle of authority within the church, so your "standing" with anyone means nothing unless you have the authority, which the catholic church does not.

I appreciate those councils that "founded" the misguided beliefs of God, based on MEN'S theories without the keys to the auhtority of God. But that appreciation is only that it kept around christianity long enough so that the keys and ordinances of the Gospel could be fully restored.

I just have one question for Jason, were revelations given to Adam enough to guide Moses's people, would Moses's revelations have been sutiable and exact for that of Abraham, what of Joseph in Egypt. One thing I cannot understand is why people stopped believing in modern revelation. The way I see it, there are only two real choices in this world as far as religion goes...the Catholic Church, or the true one, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

I just hope one day Jason, you wake up, it's gonna suck to get beyond the vail and come to the full knowledge that you walked away from Exaltation. And by the way, the only reason I haven't brought up scriptural references against Constantine Christianity is because I would be much more inclined to write a book with the hundreds of passages in the Bible that I have outlined. However, that would be nothing but squabbling with petty believers of untruths, I'm more concerned with building the kingdom of God.

[yaanufs]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Jul 14 2004, 09:52 PM

Saint Ignatius was acquainted with the Apostles themselves. His views are held in just as high regard as any of the original 12. I'd say that qualifies.

I'd say your stretching a point beyond what it can bear.

He is just an early church leader. Reading your earlier quote suggests that although people like to think all sorts about his interaction with Jesus and the 12, not all that is claimed about him can be backed up with concrete evidence.

There is evidence in the NT that even when the original 12 were still on the earth the church had 'issues' with different church units teaching false doctrine. Is it a wild leap into the dark to suppose that maybe this is evidence of yet another church leader faltering doctrinaly when left to his own interpretation of what is truth and what is not?

While we are quoting Bishops of Antioch, how about the eighth Bishop, Serapion (circa A.D. 190-211)

(1) He testifies to the Apostles as delivering the words of Christ Himself;

(2) to the jealousy of the early Christians in siring inspired writings from those of no authority as Scriptures;

(3) to their methods, as in the case of the pseudo-gospel of Peter; and

(4) to the utterly apocryphal character of that book

Serapion's epistle to Caricus and Ponticus.

That ye may see also that the proceedings of this lying confederacy, to which is given the name of New Prophecy, is abominated among the whole brotherhood throughout the world,

Some more of Serapion's writings-

For we, brethren, receive both Peter and the rest of the apostles as Christ Himself. But those writings which are falsely inscribed with their name, we as experienced persons reject. .... When, indeed, I came to see you, I supposed that all were in accord with the orthodox faith; ... but, now that I have learnt from what has been told me that their mind was secretly cherishing some heresy, I will make all haste to come to you again. Expect me therefore, brethren, shortly. Moreover, brethren, we, having discovered to what kind of heresy Marcion adhered, and seen how he contradicted himself, not understanding of what he was speaking, as you will gather from what has been written to you8 -for, having borrowed this said Gospel from those who were familiar with it from constant perusal, namely from the successors of those who were his leaders in the heresy, whom we call Docetae (for most of the opinions held by him are derived from their teaching), we were able to read it through; and while we found most of its contents to agree with the orthodox account of the Saviour, we found some things inconsistent with that, and these we have set down below for your inspection.

[yaanufs]

Hegesippus. [a.d. 170.] One of the sub-Apostolic age, a contemporary of Justin and of the martyrs of "the good Aurelius".

Wrote the following:

the seven sects which existed among the people, like Simon, from whom come the Simoniani; and Cleobius, from whom come the Cleobiani; and Doritheus, from whom come the Dorithiani; and Gorthaeus, from whom come the Gortheani; Masbothaeus, from whom come the Masbothaei. From these men also come the Menandrianists, and the Marcionists, and the Carpocratians, and the Valentinians, and the Basilidians, and the Saturnilians. Each of these leaders in his own private and distinct capacity brought in his own private opinion. From these have come false Christs, false prophets, false apostles-men who have split up the one Church into parts through their corrupting doctrines, uttered in disparagement of God and of His Christ....

[Jason]

"One thing that must be remembered is that one, regardless of standing with the 12, he did not possess the authority to act as they."

According to whom? Joseph Smith? How do you prove that?

What most Mormons don't understand is that the Bishops ARE the successors of the Apostles. The Bishops hold the same authority as the Apostles. There was no loss of priesthood or keys. There was no general apostasy of the Church. There has always been apostasy/heresy in the church, even when Christ was on the earth.

Even in your Church, you have apostasy, schisms, and heresy thriving throughout. You've had apostate "apostles," (eg Moses Thatcher and adulterer, John W. Taylor a polygamist after 1890, Joseph F. Smith II a homosexual, etc.) various splinter churches (manti, bluffdale, colorado city) schisms (temple lot, CoC, Bickertonites, Rigdonites, Strangites, etc...) and you've been around for less than 175 years!

The LDS record is not any better than the Catholic one. So stop acting superior. Thanks.

"My Branch president is in great standing with the current 12, was ordained by them to provide council to those in need, and grew up around those like Truman G. Madsen, and so on. Still he is not a member fo the 12 and issues and ordinances of the Gospel are still handled by the 12, he does nothing out of his mantle of authority within the church, so your "standing" with anyone means nothing unless you have the authority, which the catholic church does not."

That's like having a Catholic Bishop ordain someone a Deacon. Im not talking about ordaining one to a lesser office here. As for authority, you have yet to prove that the Catholic Church is not the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

"I appreciate those councils that "founded" the misguided beliefs of God, based on MEN'S theories without the keys to the auhtority of God. But that appreciation is only that it kept around christianity long enough so that the keys and ordinances of the Gospel could be fully restored."

Says who? The Councils were composed of the Bishops of the Church, who then under the guidance of the Holy Spirit voted on what was right. How does that differ from your LDS apostles and their decisions?

"I just have one question for Jason, were revelations given to Adam enough to guide Moses's people,"

No.

"would Moses's revelations have been sutiable and exact for that of Abraham,"

No.

"what of Joseph in Egypt."

Nope.

"One thing I cannot understand is why people stopped believing in modern revelation."

Well, the Catholic Church did not stop believing in it! In fact, Christ's representative on earth today, His Holiness Pope John Paul II, receives revelation on a continual basis! Since he holds the Keys of the Kingdom, and receives the guidance of the Holy Spirit as Christ promised would be with His Church till the 2nd Coming, that's ample proof that Christ still guides His Church. Hope I've cleared that up for you.

"I just hope one day Jason, you wake up, it's gonna suck to get beyond the vail and come to the full knowledge that you walked away from Exaltation."

Gee...thanks. Then again, you might die and wake up in Purgatory. (But then ole Joe and Briggy can keep you company )

"And by the way, the only reason I haven't brought up scriptural references against Constantine Christianity is because I would be much more inclined to write a book with the hundreds of passages in the Bible that I have outlined."

Why don't you start with a couple, and we'll work on those, ok?

"However, that would be nothing but squabbling with petty believers of untruths, I'm more concerned with building the kingdom of God."

Nice cop-out. Whatever you think.....

[Jason]

"He is just an early church leader."

Just? He was ordained Bishop over one of the five main See's during the life time of the original 12 Apostles, and you call him "just and early church leader"? He was marytered in Rome for his beliefs in Christ, and that's the best you can say about him? You've got a warped sense of reality.

"Reading your earlier quote suggests that although people like to think all sorts about his interaction with Jesus and the 12, not all that is claimed about him can be backed up with concrete evidence."

Well...it was nearly 2000 years ago.

"There is evidence in the NT that even when the original 12 were still on the earth the church had 'issues' with different church units teaching false doctrine."

Of course. That's not under dispute.

"Is it a wild leap into the dark to suppose that maybe this is evidence of yet another church leader faltering doctrinaly when left to his own interpretation of what is truth and what is not?"

Who says he was left to his own interpretation? Christ promised that the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete or Comforter, would be sent to guide and teach His Church. You saying that didn't happen?

"While we are quoting Bishops of Antioch, how about the eighth Bishop, Serapion (circa A.D. 190-211)

(1) He testifies to the Apostles as delivering the words of Christ Himself;

(2) to the jealousy of the early Christians in siring inspired writings from those of no authority as Scriptures;

(3) to their methods, as in the case of the pseudo-gospel of Peter; and

(4) to the utterly apocryphal character of that book"

And? What's your point? I've seen literally hundreds of mormon revelations that the leadership in SLC would condemn as apostate. What effect does that have? None.

[yaanufs]

Lots of people have died for their religious convictions over the centuries. It doesn't automatically elevate their beliefs and doctrine to truth.

Who says he was left to his own interpretation?  Christ promised that the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete or Comforter, would be sent to guide and teach His Church.  You saying that didn't happen?

I don't know if the person in question was acting under the influence of the HG or the influence of his own philosophy. Neither do you, and that's my point. Why pop up a quote to show that some folks in the early church taught the doctrine of the Trinity when there is no way of confirming how they came to their conclusions?

And?  What's your point?

Quoting ancient leaders with an unproven history adds little to the validity of your position in this subject area. It is too easy to ignore their points and blame their opinions on the already crumbling Christian church that was clearly plagued with internal doctrinal divisions.

Clearly the later Bishop of Antioc had some 'issues' with the false doctrine and the way things had been taught as fact in the earlier Church. Perhaps 'your' Bishop falls into that category?

[porterrockwell]

Jason, I am finally getting down to the nitty gritty, what you have said about modern revelation destroys all but the Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as far as ULTIMATE TRUTH goes. Outside of the Catholic church "Orthodox Christians" don't believe in modern revelation(or at least that is what they tell me) and feel that revelations given to prophets, seers, and revelators ions ago is sufficient for them in this day. While they are principles of God they are not sufficient for guidance within the Kingdom of God in the present day. So by that how can you see any other religious option than the LDS church and the Catholic church.

So we are in agreeance on that much about modern day revelation. Because what you have said by honestly answering my question(which I appreciate very deeply, because most dance like a drunk irish fool with his shoes on fire when I ask questions purtaining to proving a point) about modern revelation puts-regardless of their belief in the trinity, and the creeds-all but 2 religious sects out of the realm of ultimate truth.

And as far as their being apostasy within the CoJCoLDS, bro, the Church is true(mormon church), those who fall away, create branch offs, or try to undermine the church do nothing but damn themselves. The promise was given by God that in the dispensation of the Fullness of Times the Gospel would never again be taken from his children and that a great work would go forth. But anyway, thanks for honestly answering that question.

[Jason]

"Lots of people have died for their religious convictions over the centuries. It doesn't automatically elevate their beliefs and doctrine to truth."

Agreed. My point was that this was a Man of God. A man who was ordained by the original Apostles themselves (much like your Joseph Smith claims) and received the same authority the Apostles themselves held.

"I don't know if the person in question was acting under the influence of the HG or the influence of his own philosophy. Neither do you, and that's my point. Why pop up a quote to show that some folks in the early church taught the doctrine of the Trinity when there is no way of confirming how they came to their conclusions?"

Well I could ask you to pray about it.... Seriously, though, since Mormonism claims that their doctrines are given 'line upon line, precept upon precept' why is it so difficult to accept the legitimate doctrinal development of the Catholic Church?

"Quoting ancient leaders with an unproven history adds little to the validity of your position in this subject area."

What do you mean by "unproven history"? As for historicity, im proving a doctrinal link by showing that Bishop Ignatius received his bishoprick from the apostles. He walked, talked, ate and lived with them. Who is more likely to know what they taught regarding a specific doctrine?

"It is too easy to ignore their points and blame their opinions on the already crumbling Christian church that was clearly plagued with internal doctrinal divisions."

I disagree. But you're coming to the table with a conclusion and backtracking to find evidence to support your conclusion. That's not the scientific method. I would be hard pressed to get you to do otherwise.

"Clearly the later Bishop of Antioc had some 'issues' with the false doctrine and the way things had been taught as fact in the earlier Church. Perhaps 'your' Bishop falls into that category?"

False doctrines were taught by everyone. That's why the Holy Spirit helped the Church to weed out the tares from the wheat. It's a slow process, but it does work.

[Jason]

" what you have said about modern revelation destroys all but the Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as far as ULTIMATE TRUTH goes."

Well not necessarily. Catholics accept, for example, the baptism of the Anglicans, Lutherans, and other similiar protestant denominations. While there is some grace bestowed on other protestant denominations, the "fullness" of the gospel is found only with full communion with the Apostolic See of Rome.

"Outside of the Catholic church "Orthodox Christians" don't believe in modern revelation(or at least that is what they tell me) and feel that revelations given to prophets, seers, and revelators ions ago is sufficient for them in this day."

More than likely they are uninformed Christians. Many of the older Protestant churches, as well as the various catholic churches (Roman, Orthodox, "old", and nationalistic) believe that the Holy Spirit continues to guide their church.

"While they are principles of God they are not sufficient for guidance within the Kingdom of God in the present day. So by that how can you see any other religious option than the LDS church and the Catholic church."

I believe that there are other "options" but that the "best" option is the RCC.

"And as far as their being apostasy within the CoJCoLDS, bro, the Church is true(mormon church), those who fall away, create branch offs, or try to undermine the church do nothing but damn themselves. The promise was given by God that in the dispensation of the Fullness of Times the Gospel would never again be taken from his children and that a great work would go forth. But anyway, thanks for honestly answering that question."

I think Jenda would have something to say about that! But i'll leave it to her.

[yaanufs]

My point was that this was a Man of God.  A man who was ordained by the original Apostles themselves (much like your Joseph Smith claims) and received the same authority the Apostles themselves held.

And we all know that not all who are ordained as apostles have managed to stick to the principles and teachings of their leaders. Early LDS apostles demonstrate that fact, as well as the early, early church. I still don't accept that just because a man was ordained by the apostles means that he is a sure fire bet to stick to the truth and isn't vulnerable to the philosophies of man. Particularly in a time where philosophy was powerful and communications were poor.

Seriously, though, since Mormonism claims that their doctrines are given 'line upon line, precept upon precept' why is it so difficult to accept the legitimate doctrinal development of the Catholic Church?

Interesting thought and one that is pretty valid. This doesn't help those of a Protestant faith very much though. I guess it all depends what you call doctrinal development and what you call doctrinal leading-astray. It all comes back to trying to defend your doctrines in the Bible, which returns to my point that just using an early church leader to try and justify your position is pretty worthless IMHO.

That's not the scientific method.  I would be hard pressed to get you to do otherwise.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with your conclusion here again, there are different ways of doing research. Some involve removing all prior conclusions and knowledge and building from the ground up. Another equally valid (and that employed by 99.9% of researchers) is to build upon existing knowledge, line upon line and precept upon precept. Out of the thousands of people who work in R&D and the thousands of new things discovered every year, who many are ground breaking and destroy all prior assumptions in that field?

False doctrines were taught by everyone.  That's why the Holy Spirit helped the Church to weed out the tares from the wheat.  It's a slow process, but it does work.

This sounds dangerously like it's the Catholics, or it's the LDS church who are right. Maybe PR is accurate in his views in the post above?

[porterrockwell]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Jul 15 2004, 02:19 PM

" what you have said about modern revelation destroys all but the Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as far as ULTIMATE TRUTH goes."

Well not necessarily. Catholics accept, for example, the baptism of the Anglicans, Lutherans, and other similiar protestant denominations. While there is some grace bestowed on other protestant denominations, the "fullness" of the gospel is found only with full communion with the Apostolic See of Rome.

"Outside of the Catholic church "Orthodox Christians" don't believe in modern revelation(or at least that is what they tell me) and feel that revelations given to prophets, seers, and revelators ions ago is sufficient for them in this day."

More than likely they are uninformed Christians. Many of the older Protestant churches, as well as the various catholic churches (Roman, Orthodox, "old", and nationalistic) believe that the Holy Spirit continues to guide their church.

"While they are principles of God they are not sufficient for guidance within the Kingdom of God in the present day. So by that how can you see any other religious option than the LDS church and the Catholic church."

I believe that there are other "options" but that the "best" option is the RCC.

"And as far as their being apostasy within the CoJCoLDS, bro, the Church is true(mormon church), those who fall away, create branch offs, or try to undermine the church do nothing but damn themselves. The promise was given by God that in the dispensation of the Fullness of Times the Gospel would never again be taken from his children and that a great work would go forth. But anyway, thanks for honestly answering that question."

I think Jenda would have something to say about that! But i'll leave it to her.

I remember talking about this last sunday with a someone after Elders Quorum. A quote(which I cannot furnish at this time but will when I find it) Was taken from someone within the Catholic Community in which he said(this is not verbatum but to the point)....."You Mormons don't know how much you have going for you, there are only TWO options, either the Catholic Church was started by Peter and continued through that line of authority today, or there was COMPLETE apostasy and the Gospel was fully restored to Joseph Smith....and that all other groups are workings of splinter organizations that acted without the authority from God.

I don't care what Jenda has to say, I just viewed that sham of a website that is the Community of Christ, or as I like to call it Crock o' Crap. Even if you aren't mormon, it permeates(not spelled right for sure) manutia. Even you can agree Jason that they totally renigged(not a racial slur, if you have ever played spades you know what that means) on the 1st vision and cut out a bunch of historically important facts. Funny how they don't even mention Brigham, even if in opposition. Not to mention that woman are now allowed to hold the priesthood. But I digress.

I don't buy that Christ is the head of a bunch of different churches. He is the head of one true church, there is only one, I believe it to be the COJCOLDS, you more or less the RCC. But there is only one. and that "semi-quote" that I posted is pretty hard to argue with.

[Ray]

Jason:  Ray,

First, let me say that I’m glad to see you join in on the discussion.

Thank you, but this will probably be my last part in the discussion because I believe all of this has already been said before. I hope what I have to say will help.

Ray:  You believe Jesus and our heavenly Father are both God, correct?

Jason:  Correct.

Ray:  Do you also believe Jesus is the same “being” as our heavenly Father?

Jason:  Yes. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1)

So in other words, you think John was saying Jesus was with Himself in the beginning?

Interesting idea, but are you sure you have reached a correct conclusion?

Let’s talk about the word “God” for a moment.

What do you think that word refers to?

I say that word refers to EITHER a specific being who can be classified as God OR all beings who can be classified as God. When we refer to a specific being, though, we use a capital “G”.

In the first chapter of John, for instance, the word God is being used both ways, and if we were to substitute some words for other words we would have:

In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with our heavenly Father, and Jesus was God.

Ray:  They are both one, but our belief regarding the manner in which They are one is different.

Jason:  Yes, Mormons believe that the Father and the Son are one in purpose only.

Except for the last word you used, which was “only”, you are correct. They are also one in what I refer to as “powers and attributes”, because they are both perfected beings.

We do not believe that Jesus is the same being as our heavenly Father, yet they are the same classification of being.

Ray:  Jason, please respond to John 14:28.

Jason:  Ok. Let's put it into context. Beginning in verse 6:

'Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?

Then in verse 28:

'Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.'

Theologians have long debated about the nature of Christ. Most feel that Christ was both God and Man. When he exhorts his followers to follow the Father, he is speaking as a Man. But on other occasions, he clearly points out that He (Jesus) is the Father. In my view, since we [you] already know that Son is the Father, it makes this verse much less difficult to understand. The way I see it, Christ is leading by example, and exhorting his disciples to continue to pray to God, though like His baptism, he had no personal need to do so.

I disagree with the words which I highlighted in bold.

I say you interpret John 14 more literally than I do, so you arrive at a different conclusion.

You say that Jesus was saying that He was and is literally the Father, our heavenly Father.

I say that Jesus was saying that He was and is essentially our heavenly Father, because they are the same classification of being and essentially the same. In other words, given the same circumstances, each of them would do exactly the same thing or arrive at the same conclusion. They also have the same powers and attributes, yet our heavenly Father is or at least was greater than Jesus. Otherwise, Jesus would not have said that.

Jesus did what He had seen our heavenly Father do, and in fact, Jesus carried out our Father’s will, so when looking at Jesus we can see our heavenly Father through Him.

This conclusion is obvious to me in light of Jesus’ references to how we come to the Father, how Jesus was going to the Father, and how the Father was greater than Jesus.

How else would Jesus be able to show the Father to someone other than by being like Him? Do you imagine that if Jesus had taken his apostles someplace where our heavenly Father would appear to them, that the mere appearance of another being would have been enough to show the apostles who our heavenly Father really was?

Again, you understand things differently than I do, the reasoning from both of us is logical, but only one of us has a correct understanding on this issue.

Ray:  Do you believe our heavenly Father is or was greater than Jesus, or not?

Jason:  Christ was not created. He was from the beginning as John 1:1 states. Christ taught that he was the great "I AM" of the Old Testament. The Great I Am, or Jehovah, is the same person as Christ. They are ONE.

I know they are one. As I said, we only disagree about “how” they are one.

Yes, Jesus was and is Jehovah, the God who spoke to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In this case it is a literal unity or “one-ness. They are “yahed”, one being with multiple identities. The being known by the name or word “Jehovah” (a transliteration of some Hebrew letters) before birth on Earth was the same being known by the name “Jesus” (another transliteration) after birth on Earth. Jesus existed before His birth on Earth, just as we did, except that Jesus was like our heavenly Father even then. At best, we are still only trying to become like Him, and Them.

Ray:  And what do you mean by “incarnated”?

Jason:  The Word took upon himself Flesh and became the Son. God is a Spirit (John 4:24).

Correct, but again, we disagree on our understanding of these issues.

Jesus “took upon himself flesh” and became the only begotten son of God born on Earth. Jesus has parents just as we do, but His Father is God, our heavenly Father, and His mother is Mary, a descendent of Adam and Eve. All the rest of us are intermingled descendents of Adam and Eve only, with no divine parent of our mortal bodies.

And yes, God is a Spirit, clothed with a body . It would not be correct to say that God is a Body. In this way we are like Him, except that His Spirit is perfected and His body is glorified.

Ray:  Do you believe Jesus is the same “being” as our heavenly Father?

Jason:  That's what Jesus taught. So, yeah, I believe it.

Again, I say Jesus taught that He was essentially our heavenly Father, not literally. They are two separate beings, each in unity with each other.

Ray:  Do you believe Jesus existed before He was born to Mary in Jerusalem?

Jason:  Christ was not created. He has always existed (John 1:1). Christ was not created in the womb. Furthermore, I do not accept the LDS theory that God the Father had sex with Mary and impregnated her.

Correct, Jesus was not brought into existence in the womb of Mary. Jesus has always existed, just as you and I have always existed, except that you and I are not perfected like He is.

And since you brought it up, I also do not accept the theory that God the Father had sex with Mary to impregnate her, but I do know that Jesus is a begotten son of our heavenly Father. The theory that our heavenly Father had sex with Mary was and is a theory advanced by people who could not or cannot conceive of any other way for Man to impregnate Woman other than by having sex, but even in our day we know there are other ways.

Ray:  In the beginning, when God created the Earth, was our heavenly Father talking with Jesus, or was our heavenly Father talking to Himself?

Jason:  Good question. I believe that the Father/Son God was speaking in such a way so that we could understand the process. That does not mean that there is more than one God, or that God was specifically talking to some "helper". God does not need assistance to do anything. I might also point out that the Genesis narrative was plagerized from a pagan source that likely came from either the ancient Sumerians or some other early semetic culture. The Hebrews adopted the popular narrative, and pretended that it was their own (possibly to add credibility to their claims on uniqueness....). I personally do not accept that the narrative is literal.

Yes, the Son and Father were speaking in such a way so that we can understand the process of creation and the persons involved, but as you can see, we can also come up with a different interpretation leading to different conclusions or understandings.

I find it interesting how you veer off into blatant speculation at this point, by saying that the Genesis narrative was plagiarized by the “Hebrews”. I concede that some people have that understanding and that it is a possibility, but it is not correct. In fact, it was some other cultures who plagiarized that story from the people who were or later became known as “Hebrews”.

I also find it interesting how you don’t accept this passage literally, while I do, yet you accept some other passages literally, while I don’t. Heh, reverse your thinking and we’ll both agree.

Ray:  And in the garden of Gethsemane, when Jesus prayed to our heavenly Father, was He only praying to Himself?

Jason:  No. Christ taught that He was God. Christ had no more need to pray to the Father than He had need to be baptized. But he did it for us. He followed the commandments to show us the way.

This is pure speculation on another matter which can be interpreted differently, as I am showing.

Ray:  God is either “yahed”, one being with multiple personalities, or “ehad”, multiple beings in unity with each other. There is no other option, and no greater mystery to those who don’t know.

Jason:  It's not a mystery if you accept the teachings of the Bible and God's Church. To limit your understanding on the semantics of Yahed and Ehad is to ignore various other passages where Christ teaches that He is God the Father.

True, there is no mystery when you understand the truth, but how do you know the difference between knowing the truth and knowing what you think is true?

My understanding of this issue isn’t limited to the words “yahed” and “ehad”, but words are important, don’t you agree? Can’t you see an advantage to looking at source documents instead of how other people interpret or translate what was said?

Even if you’re not using the words ‘yahed” and “ehad”, you’re still adopting one of those perspectives, because there are no other options. And as we have shown, different interpretations are still possible even when using correct words.

Ray:  Jason, did you have trouble understanding Traveler’s question?

Jason:  No. Christ and God are the same. Therefore, Traveler was making an assumption that I thought they were different. They are not.

This is another example of the message behind what we are talking about.

Yes, Christ is God, but Christ is not our heavenly Father, as people often use the word God to refer to our heavenly Father. Christ is God, Christ is Jesus, and Christ is Jehovah, but Christ is not the person we commonly refer to as our heavenly Father. And yet even that is debatable, because Christ becomes our Father as we are born again through Him, and since He is also in heaven, with our heavenly Father, He can also be referred to as our heavenly Father. Interesting, huh.

Ray:  Isn’t it possible that cherubim are also God, even if not as “great” as our heavenly Father?

Jason:  No. The Kirabu are ministers doing God's will. Period.

I’ve already given you my understanding on this issue. Where does your source information come from? I don’t happen to know much about the word “Kirabu”, but I’m interested in learning more.

Ray:  Personally, I believe that cherubim are the classification of angels as close to God as possible, yet for some reason still not God.

Jason:  Ok.

As I said, this is a personal belief, not to be confused with a testimony known by Faith.

Ray:  I also believe that the offspring of God are classified as either God, Angel, or Man, with each being created from an order of intelligence.

Jason:  You're implying that God has sex to create?

No, I’m not implying that, as there are other possibilities. I can’t think of any way that I’d enjoy more, though.

Ray:  Each of these beings can also be classified generally as God, though, because all of these beings are the offspring of God.

Jason:  If I build a computer, does that mean it's a man? Or that I intend it to become a man?

I was saying that God’s offspring can be classified into different orders of being, distinguished by what I believe to be different stages of development.

A computer is not the offspring of man, so that hardly qualifies as an appropriate example.

More appropriate examples for classifications of Man are: Infant, Toddler, Youngster, Adolescent, and Adult. Each of these can also be distinguished by Gender, both male and female.

I could also add some more classifications to distinguish other stages of development for Man, both before and after being Man, such as the primal intellect we have always been to the glorified Man we will hopefully someday become. I believe it is between those stages of development that there are Angel and Man in various other stages of development.

Ray:  The question now is, since “we” or “they” are all the offspring of God, can Man or Angel evolve or continue to develop until becoming like God?

Jason:  There is only One God. There is no need for more than One God. Why do you think we even need more than one Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient being in the universe?

Yes, in all of existence there is only one order or classification of being who can truthfully be called God. Any other type of being is not God, otherwise they would be classified as God.

To answer your question about why we might need more than one being known as God, you tell me, why do we need more than one classification of being known as Man? Or do we?

Ray:  This reminds me of another scripture in John 17 in which Jesus referred to our heavenly Father as the “only true God”. Do you suppose that Jesus was disqualifying Himself as a “true” God by saying that? What do you suppose Jesus meant by that?

Jason:  He was reminding his disciples that any god that is not God, is no god at all.

Do you realize that Jesus made that comment while praying to our heavenly Father? Are you telling me that Jesus said that so that the people who later wrote down what Jesus said during His prayer would get another message out of what Jesus was saying? Interesting, but again, I have a different interpretation.

Ray:  A fallen angel is still an angel, and a fallen man is still a man, though maybe not as true or “perfect” as a “real” one, but what is the standard for determining whether an Angel or Man is “real”.

Jason:  While I've already disagreed on what Christ meant in the previous verse you quoted, we can still explore this on it's own merit. I see it as black and white. You are a man or you are something else. You are an angel, or you are something else. Perfection is a discussion for philosophers. Ask them.

How do you define a philosopher? Seems to me that you and I can both come up with the philosophies of men all day long, but how are we ever going to know the truth?

Ray:  And what is a “false” God, or a “real” or true God? And please, don’t give me names. I’m asking you to give me some descriptions here.

Jason:  There is only ONE GOD. Therefore, anything that is not God, is not a God. How's that? I don't know how to simplify this issue any further. Every god is false that is not the ONE GOD.

Heh, I find it interesting how we are ending our discussion on something else that is both true and not true, depending upon how you interpret it.

True, there is only one classification of being which can truthfully be called God in all of existence, and anything else is not God. However, within that classification of being there is more than one specific being, and we are the offspring of one or more of them.

[Jason]

Geez Ray, if I would have known you were writting a book..... By the way, i've removed some of the redundant stuff...

"So in other words, you think John was saying Jesus was with Himself in the beginning?

Interesting idea, but are you sure you have reached a correct conclusion?"

Let me correct myself here. Im afraid I might have misled the readers here on the interpretation of the Trinity. With what I've posted, I basically defined tri-theism as opposed to the Blessed Trinity. So, i'll clarify what I mean. The Trinity is one essence with three beings. Whereas tri-theism is three essences with one being. On the other hand, mormonism teaches that there are three essences with three beings. If that makes sense to you, your doing better than most!

That should help clarify most of what I've posted in the past, and my understanding of it all.

"Let’s talk about the word “God” for a moment. What do you think that word refers to?

I say that word refers to EITHER a specific being who can be classified as God OR all beings who can be classified as God."

Using my definition of the Trinity as described above, I have no problem with this....

"When we refer to a specific being, though, we use a capital “G”."

This is where I differ. Although the Greek New Testament uses nothing but Capitol Letters, we use capital "G" to denote the true God from the lower cased "g" of false gods.

"In the first chapter of John, for instance, the word God is being used both ways, and if we were to substitute some words for other words we would have:

In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with our heavenly Father, and Jesus was God."

I can see why you would do that. Here's how I might do it:

"In the beginning there was the Being, and the Being was part of the Essence, and the Being is the Essence."

Whew...that'll stretch your mind a bit...

"I say you interpret John 14 more literally than I do, so you arrive at a different conclusion.

You say that Jesus was saying that He was and is literally the Father, our heavenly Father."

Again, I hope I've clarified the difference between the Blessed Trinity, and Tri-Theism. Sorry for the mix-up.

"I say that Jesus was saying that He was and is essentially our heavenly Father, because they are the same classification of being and essentially the same."

This is where i'd pipe in with the same "essence" different "being". See Ray, you're not so far removed from a belief in the Trinity as you think.

"...They also have the same powers and attributes, yet our heavenly Father is or at least was greater than Jesus. Otherwise, Jesus would not have said that."

Some deep theology in that sentence. This is where we define the "human" from the "God" natures of Christ. He was both fully Human and fully God. Was it his human side speaking or his divine side? Probably not something we can know for sure.

"Jesus did what He had seen our heavenly Father do..."

Well....you know our differences on this....

" and in fact, Jesus carried out our Father’s will, so when looking at Jesus we can see our heavenly Father through Him. This conclusion is obvious to me in light of Jesus’ references to how we come to the Father, how Jesus was going to the Father, and how the Father was greater than Jesus. How else would Jesus be able to show the Father to someone other than by being like Him?"

But the danger on this type of interpretation (this coming from an amature in theology mind you...) is that technically every time someone is doing the will of God, we are "acting" like and "being" like God. This could lead some to cease worshipping God and worshipping man. My take anyway...

"Again, you understand things differently than I do, the reasoning from both of us is logical, but only one of us has a correct understanding on this issue."

ok.

"Correct, but again, we disagree on our understanding of these issues....And yes, God is a Spirit, clothed with a body . It would not be correct to say that God is a Body. In this way we are like Him, except that His Spirit is perfected and His body is glorified."

Well....you know I disagree...

"Ray: Do you believe Jesus is the same “being” as our heavenly Father?

Jason: That's what Jesus taught. So, yeah, I believe it."

"Again, I say Jesus taught that He was essentially our heavenly Father, not literally. They are two separate beings, each in unity with each other."

And for myself, I hope that I've clarified myself with the difference between the Trinity and Tri-theism.

"Correct, Jesus was not brought into existence in the womb of Mary. Jesus has always existed, just as you and I have always existed, except that you and I are not perfected like He is."

I do not accept a pre-existence. To me, belief in the eternal existence of the soul would make irrelevant the Resurrection. If I always existed, as you believe, without God, then God could not destroy me. This limits the power of God, and He is no longer Omnipotent. In other words, what do I care if I have a body or not, as long as i still exist, what does it matter? What will I do with a body that I cannot with a Spirit/Soul?

"And since you brought it up, I also do not accept the theory that God the Father had sex with Mary to impregnate her, but I do know that Jesus is a begotten son of our heavenly Father."

Well...I just brought that up to be difficult. I know most LDS think Brigham was full of baloney when he taught that....

"I find it interesting how you veer off into blatant speculation at this point, by saying that the Genesis narrative was plagiarized by the “Hebrews”. I concede that some people have that understanding and that it is a possibility, but it is not correct."

You state as fact, sir, what you cannot prove. Dangerous thinking in my view...

"I also find it interesting how you don’t accept this passage literally, while I do, yet you accept some other passages literally, while I don’t. Heh, reverse your thinking and we’ll both agree."

I view the creation as an allegory. Science has clearly proven that the Genesis myth is just that, a myth. I see it as a way for God to teach an illiterate, ignorant people how the world came to be. Today, God has blessed us with greater intelligence and knowledge, so that we now better understand how the world came into being.

"True, there is no mystery when you understand the truth, but how do you know the difference between knowing the truth and knowing what you think is true?"

I pray and ask for God's guidance. I imagine you do the same.

"My understanding of this issue isn’t limited to the words “yahed” and “ehad”, but words are important, don’t you agree?"

Absolutely.

"Can’t you see an advantage to looking at source documents instead of how other people interpret or translate what was said?"

Of course. The problem is how did the writer convey his thoughts with words that may have changed meaning? For example, take the word Gay. Now if Joseph Smith had written: "Man is that he might be gay." You'd have a heck of a problem on your hands, right? Words themselves can changes meanings. That's why we need the Holy Spirit to guide us. That's my argument for Catholicism.

"Yes, Christ is God, but Christ is not our heavenly Father, as people often use the word God to refer to our heavenly Father. Christ is God, Christ is Jesus, and Christ is Jehovah, but Christ is not the person we commonly refer to as our heavenly Father. And yet even that is debatable, because Christ becomes our Father as we are born again through Him, and since He is also in heaven, with our heavenly Father, He can also be referred to as our heavenly Father. Interesting, huh."

Definitely. And believe it or not, the above agrees pretty well with the Trinity. Even more interesting huh?

"I’ve already given you my understanding on this issue. Where does your source information come from? I don’t happen to know much about the word “Kirabu”, but I’m interested in learning more."

That's from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Go to newadvent.com.

"I was saying that God’s offspring can be classified into different orders of being, distinguished by what I believe to be different stages of development.

A computer is not the offspring of man, so that hardly qualifies as an appropriate example."

I disagree. I don't believe that the Father is a man. Or ever was a Man, or ever will be a man. So the example actually is appropriate.

"Jason: There is only One God. There is no need for more than One God. Why do you think we even need more than one Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient being in the universe?

Ray: To answer your question about why we might need more than one being known as God, you tell me, why do we need more than one classification of being known as Man? Or do we?"

That doesn't answer my question. I know there are different types of men. But there is only One God. Please, think about this. What point is there in having more than one all powerful God? Does God really need YOU to help him create worlds without end?

"How do you define a philosopher? Seems to me that you and I can both come up with the philosophies of men all day long, but how are we ever going to know the truth?"

I believe that philosophy is useful for understanding God and the mysteries of the Gospel. I don't consider the "philosophies of men" to be of the devil. Your own mormon revelations declare that the Glory of God is intelligence. I believe that God has given us this intelligence to better understand Him and His ways.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Jul 15 2004, 05:26 PM

I view the creation as an allegory. Science has clearly proven that the Genesis myth is just that, a myth. I see it as a way for God to teach an illiterate, ignorant people how the world came to be. Today, God has blessed us with greater intelligence and knowledge, so that we now better understand how the world came into being.

I definitely agree with this statement (but I probably wouldn't have 20 years ago). We know humans are older than 6,000 years and different species of mankind have existed. I also see Genesis as God's way of introducing himself to mankind.

M.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by Maureen+Jul 15 2004, 07:43 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Maureen @ Jul 15 2004, 07:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--ExMormon-Jason@Jul 15 2004, 05:26 PM

I view the creation as an allegory. Science has clearly proven that the Genesis myth is just that, a myth. I see it as a way for God to teach an illiterate, ignorant people how the world came to be. Today, God has blessed us with greater intelligence and knowledge, so that we now better understand how the world came into being.

I definitely agree with this statement (but I probably wouldn't have 20 years ago). We know humans are older than 6,000 years and different species of mankind have existed. I also see Genesis as God's way of introducing himself to mankind.

M.

Personally I think these comments miss the most important point about creation. I believe the creation to be an increadable act of love and service at unknowable cost of divine power for which G-d receives nothing for himself in return.

The Traveler