False Teachers

[Snow]

Originally posted by Mark@Aug 7 2004, 07:08 AM

So back to my original post that the LDS Jesus is a different Jesus of the bible, don't worry about whos right or wrong at this point, just acknowlage that we believe in to different Jesus's. LDS Jesus is a created being (out of intelligence) and the Biblical Jesus has always been God ( John 1:1, Phil. 2:5-10)

Do me a favor, don't bail on this, if I am wrong give me a clear current LDS teaching that says Jesus has always been God?

Mark

John 1:12

Dishonest argument.

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ, believe in the Christ of the Bible. For you to claim that we don't is pure sophism.

Beside the two references you gave do not support your premise. Phil 2:5-10 doesn't say what you pretend it does, and that is probably why you didn't post the actual verse. John simply says that Christ was in the Begining with God. Mormons acknowledge that. However if you are maintaining that it implied that Christ was God from the first instance the Father was God, then you have a problem because you are trying to say that God is Eternal having no begining, so Christ couldn't not have been at the begining since there wasn't one.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Mark+ Aug 7 2004, 07:08 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mark @ Aug 7 2004, 07:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I was kind of hoping that a LDS member would correct you on Sec 93, but I guess that is not going to happen.

Heh, I would hope that wouldn’t happen. If it did I’d have to try to teach that LDS member the doctrine of our Church. Does it now help you to know that Snow and I are in agreement on this?

Ray, section 93 is a proof text to my original post in that Jesus was intelligence, born to Eloheim in spirit ( the firstborn) and at some point in time had to be exalted to deity.

Jesus wasn’t exalted to deity. Jesus was already deity, and simply went from one glory to another. I posted this on another thread, and I’ll post it here for you too.

<!--QuoteBegin--Ray@ Aug 7 2004, 09:10 PM

To put it simply, Man is the offspring of God, and is God in embryo, with the full potential of becoming like our heavenly parents.

In other words, Man and God are the same "species", and Man is simply a word we use to refer to a particular classification of being within the classification of being known as God.

In other words, "Man" and "God" are words that are used to convey an idea, and one idea sometimes has something in common with another idea. In this case, these ideas are related in "kind", but not in "glory".

Just as the embryo of Man has the potential to become an adult, either a wicked or righteous adult, righteous Man has the potential to become like God. In one sense Man is God already, because we are of the same species, but those of us here on Earth still have a lot of growing up to do before we will reach our full potential.

Now, if you don't believe that what I'm saying is true, I hope at least you can see that what I'm saying is in agreement with "LDS" doctrine.

Originally posted by Mark@ Aug 7 2004, 07:08 AM

The priesthood teaching manual standard, "Gospel through the Ages", which was endorsed by the church as a official teaching manual says..." God the eternal Father was once a MORTAL Man who passed through a school of earth life similar to that through which you are passing..." (p.104)

Ahhh, but what is MORTALITY, and what is MAN? Do you believe that Death is the end of existence? Do you believe that Man will someday cease to exist? The scriptures teach that Man is just as eternal as God is, and the question is only a matter of what Man will or may become.

Originally posted by Mark@ Aug 7 2004, 07:08 AM

Speaking of God it continues..." thus he grew in experience and continued to grow until He attained the status of Godhood. In other words, He BECAME God..." (p.114)

He became God only in the sense that He become even more like our heavenly Father than He previously had been, but He was always God.

Read what John stated in John 7:39, where he stated that Jesus was not yet glorified. Do you realize that this scripture was written by the same person who said that Jesus was God and with God in the beginning? What do you suppose John meant by that?

Read John 17:5 where Jesus stated:

And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Do you suppose that this meant that Jesus had at some point stopped becoming God? What do you suppose Jesus was asking for, and what do you suppose our heavenly Father did in response to this request?

Read what Paul stated in Phillipians 2:9-11 -

Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

What do you suppose Paul meant when he stated that God [our Father] “highly exalted” Jesus? Do you suppose that our Father only gave Jesus the glory that Jesus previously had with our Father, or did our Father give Jesus more?

The correct answer to those questions will help you better know Jesus and our heavenly Father who sent Him, and lead YOU to a better hope of attaining eternal life.

Originally posted by Mark@ Aug 7 2004, 07:08 AM

Do me a favor, don't bail on this, if I am wrong give me a clear current LDS teaching that says Jesus has always been God?

I have done so, and will do so again, if you will do me a favor:

If you believe I am wrong, give me a clear teaching from the Bible or any other source of scripture that says that my understanding of this issue is wrong, but first study, ponder and pray about all of the information I have already given you to better understand what I am saying.

You seem to have a lot of trouble seeing that what I am saying is in agreement with what the scriptures and Church leaders teach, when it should be obvious to you that I am teaching the same thing.

[Maureen]

Ray - I believe personally that you and I have different definitions of the word God (due to debates on other threads). So I'm not sure if these scriptures will mean to you what they mean to me:

God said to Moses, “I AM that I AM.”47 And he said, “You must say this to the Israelites, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” God also said to Moses, “You must say this to the Israelites, ‘The Lord—the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you. This is my name forever, and this is my memorial from generation to generation.’ (Exodus 3:14-15)

(47tn The verb form used here is hy\h=a# (‘ehyeh), the Qal imperfect, first person common singular, of the verb “to be,” hyh (haya). It forms an excellent paronomasia with the name. So when God used the verb to express his name, he used this form saying, “I AM.” When his people refer to him as Yahweh, which is the third person masculine singular form of the same verb, they say “he is.” Some commentators argue for a future tense translation, “I will be who I will be,” because the verb has an active quality about it, and the Israelites lived in the light of the promises for the future. They argue that “I AM” would be of little help to the Israelites in bondage. But a translation of “I will be” does not effectively do much more except restrict it to the future. The idea of the verb would certainly indicate that God is not bound by time, and while he is present (“I AM”) he will always be present, even in the future, and so “I AM” would embrace that as well (see also Ruth 2:13; Ps 50:21; Hos 1:9). The Greek translation used a participle to capture the idea; and several times in the Gospels Jesus used the powerful “I am” with this significance. The point is that Yahweh is sovereignly independent of all creation and that his presence guarantees the fulfillment of the covenant (cf. Isa 41:4; 42:6, 8; 43:10-11; 44:6; 45:5-7). Others argue for a causative Hiphil translation of “I will cause to be,” but nowhere in the Bible does this verb appear in Hiphil or Piel. A good summary of the views can be found in G. H. Park-Taylor, hwhy, Yahweh, the Divine Name in the Bible (Waterloo, Ontario, 1975). See among the many articles: B. Beitzel, “Exodus 3:14 and the Divine Name: A Case of Biblical Paronomasia,” TJ 1 (1980): 5-20; C. D. Isbell, “The Divine Name ehyeh as a Symbol of Presence in Israelite Tradition,” HAR 2 (1978): 101-18; J. G. Janzen, “What’s in a Name? Yahweh in Exodus 3 and the Wider Biblical Context,” Int 33 (1979): 227-39; J. R. Lundbom, “God’s Use of the Idem per Idem to Terminate Debate,” HTR 71 (1978): 193-201; A. R. Millard, “Yw and Yhw Names,” VT 30 (1980): 208-12; and R. Youngblood, “A New Occurrence of the Divine Name ‘I AM,’” JETS 15 (1972): 144-52.)

Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I am!”160 Then they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out from the temple area. (John 8:58-59)

(160sn I am! is an explicit claim to deity. Although each occurrence of the phrase “I am” in the Fourth Gospel needs to be examined individually in context to see if an association with Exod 3:14 is present, it seems clear that this is the case here (as the response of the Jewish authorities in the following verse shows).)

Verses and text notes are from the NET bible at bible.org.

M.

[Jason]

I think that's a bogus argument.

More is known about the LDS Church, it's foundation and early history, than any single other religion on earth, bar none and the overwhelming majority of what's know has come from the Church and Church members themselves. What religion could withstand the scutiny placed upon the Church?

I assume you have some sort of proof to back up your claim? You know, like how the LDS church is more well known than, say JW's Or SDA's, or any other new religion invented in the last 200 years?

As for scrutiny, the fact that Catholics are still around after so many bad Pope's, says that it's a faith worth having in spite of it all.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Maureen@Aug 8 2004, 12:46 PM

Ray - I believe personally that you and I have different definitions of the word God (due to debates on other threads). So I'm not sure if these scriptures will mean to you what they mean to me:

God said to Moses, “I AM that I AM.”47 And he said, “You must say this to the Israelites, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” God also said to Moses, “You must say this to the Israelites, ‘The Lord—the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you. This is my name forever, and this is my memorial from generation to generation.’ (Exodus 3:14-15)

(47tn The verb form used here is hy\h=a# (‘ehyeh), the Qal imperfect, first person common singular, of the verb “to be,” hyh (haya). It forms an excellent paronomasia with the name. So when God used the verb to express his name, he used this form saying, “I AM.” When his people refer to him as Yahweh, which is the third person masculine singular form of the same verb, they say “he is.” Some commentators argue for a future tense translation, “I will be who I will be,” because the verb has an active quality about it, and the Israelites lived in the light of the promises for the future. They argue that “I AM” would be of little help to the Israelites in bondage. But a translation of “I will be” does not effectively do much more except restrict it to the future. The idea of the verb would certainly indicate that God is not bound by time, and while he is present (“I AM”) he will always be present, even in the future, and so “I AM” would embrace that as well (see also Ruth 2:13; Ps 50:21; Hos 1:9). The Greek translation used a participle to capture the idea; and several times in the Gospels Jesus used the powerful “I am” with this significance. The point is that Yahweh is sovereignly independent of all creation and that his presence guarantees the fulfillment of the covenant (cf. Isa 41:4; 42:6, 8; 43:10-11; 44:6; 45:5-7). Others argue for a causative Hiphil translation of “I will cause to be,” but nowhere in the Bible does this verb appear in Hiphil or Piel. A good summary of the views can be found in G. H. Park-Taylor, hwhy, Yahweh, the Divine Name in the Bible (Waterloo, Ontario, 1975). See among the many articles: B. Beitzel, “Exodus 3:14 and the Divine Name: A Case of Biblical Paronomasia,” TJ 1 (1980): 5-20; C. D. Isbell, “The Divine Name ehyeh as a Symbol of Presence in Israelite Tradition,” HAR 2 (1978): 101-18; J. G. Janzen, “What’s in a Name? Yahweh in Exodus 3 and the Wider Biblical Context,” Int 33 (1979): 227-39; J. R. Lundbom, “God’s Use of the Idem per Idem to Terminate Debate,” HTR 71 (1978): 193-201; A. R. Millard, “Yw and Yhw Names,” VT 30 (1980): 208-12; and R. Youngblood, “A New Occurrence of the Divine Name ‘I AM,’” JETS 15 (1972): 144-52.)

Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I am!”160 Then they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out from the temple area. (John 8:58-59)

(160sn I am! is an explicit claim to deity. Although each occurrence of the phrase “I am” in the Fourth Gospel needs to be examined individually in context to see if an association with Exod 3:14 is present, it seems clear that this is the case here (as the response of the Jewish authorities in the following verse shows).)

Verses and text notes are from the NET bible at bible.org.

M.

What are you trying to say, Maureen? That Jesus is eternal? I have already said that. Try speaking to me as one Man speaks to another and forgo the exhaustive references, okay? I'm perfectly capable of discerning the truth for myself, with God's help.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Ray@Aug 8 2004, 06:47 PM

What are you trying to say, Maureen?  That Jesus is eternal?  I have already said that.  Try speaking to me as one Man speaks to another and forgo the exhaustive references, okay?  I'm perfectly capable of discerning the truth for myself, with God's help.

Excuse me! You're telling me I'm not allowed to post what I post because you don't want to bother reading it, or try to deduce what it might mean? If you are capable of discerning truth then why ask the question of What are you trying to say, Maureen? Why ask if you already know?

Seriously Ray, the term I AM is a reference to God. Jesus separates himself from Abraham by saying before Abraham even existed Jesus existed as God. You believe that Abraham and all mankind also existed before the beginning of their earthly existence. But the John scripture makes the distinction between Abraham's existence and Jesus' existence. Abraham at one point did not exist and Jesus is God (I AM) so he has always existed. Hence Abraham is not eternal in the sense that Jesus is eternal and therefore God.

M.

(Editing to change from Exodus to John)

[Snow]

Originally posted by Ray@Aug 8 2004, 10:24 AM

Heh, I would hope that wouldn’t happen. If it did I’d have to try to teach that LDS member the doctrine of our Church. Does it now help you to know that Snow and I are in agreement on this?

Agreement about what? I'm not following everything - I think Mark has used scriptures to mean something that they don't say, but I don't agree with you that the LDS Church teaches that Christ has always been God. I did a quick check of Talmage's Jesus the Christ and my understanding is that while Christ is the God of the Old Testament (the creator) there was a time, prior to the great pre-existance council when he was not the same in stature as he is now; that sometime subsequent to the council he ascended to his current station.

Is that what you are talking about?

[Snow]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Aug 8 2004, 01:25 PM

I think that's a bogus argument.

More is known about the LDS Church, it's foundation and early history, than any single other religion on earth, bar none and the overwhelming majority of what's know has come from the Church and Church members themselves. What religion could withstand the scutiny placed upon the Church?

I assume you have some sort of proof to back up your claim? You know, like how the LDS church is more well known than, say JW's Or SDA's, or any other new religion invented in the last 200 years?

Do I have scientific proof of it?

No. It is something that I have heard and read a number of times and have observed myself to ring true. There is an extraordinarily large amount of scholarly material available from and on the LDS Church. I don't know much about the Seventh Day movement but there is no absolutely corollary to the JW movement. For one reason, JWs are relatively anti-intellectual. While they write alot, they don't write much with significant depth. The only thing that would compare to the material on LDS Church is that of the Catholic Church (but not over its early history) and the Puritans.

I am reading an erudite book called Mormons and the Bible (Barlow). In the preface it says: Moses Rischin, writing in 1969 could reasonably conclude that the great flow of works on the Saints was "unparalleled for any religious group except the Puritans. - And since that time the flow of material has exploded. - There is good reason for the interest. One is that the followers of JS have exerted disporportionate influence on national affairs. For instance the new formed Republican Party of 1856 built it's platform around or against the twin relics of barbarism - slavery and Mormon polygamy. Mormon impact has been just as strongly felt in the 20th century on such issues as abortion and the ERA.

The heroic epoch of the Church 1820 - 1912 is a true story full of drama, tragedy, heroism, violence, sex, visions, failure, success, all on a grand scale. It is a great story, almost irresistable. As A. Leland Johnson put it, "The historical evolution of the Mormons furnished the most thrilling chapter in the whole chronicle in American Religion. By comparison, the adventures of the settlers in New England seem tame."

Additionally, The Mormons are accessible for study - both becasue they are flourishing today and because, from their beginnings, they have been incredibly diligent record-keepers. Because of their early, relatively isolated and socially homogeneous existence, they have provided a laboratory for study.

Finally, Mormonism has proivded students of culture with an unsual resource to apprehend America. Tolstoi thought "the Mormon people teach the American religion." Sydney Ahlstrom said that the study of JS and his heir "yeilds innumerable cues to the religious and social consciousness of the American people."

[Snow]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Aug 8 2004, 01:25 PM

As for scrutiny, the fact that Catholics are still around after so many bad Pope's, says that it's a faith worth having in spite of it all.

That's the optimistic view. Of course, there are many other, less sanguine, views.

[Jason]

Snow,

Of course it helps to have a relatively modern religion, since record keeping (and communication in general)has been much improved these last few centuries.

Anyways, until the Church Archives are open to professional non-mormon scholars, as well as the so-called mysterious "vault", I'll remain a skeptic on the "openess" of Mormonism.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Snow@ Aug 8 2004, 09:18 PM

Agreement about what? I'm not following everything - I think Mark has used scriptures to mean something that they don't say, but I don't agree with you that the LDS Church teaches that Christ has always been God. I did a quick check of Talmage's Jesus the Christ and my understanding is that while Christ is the God of the Old Testament (the creator) there was a time, prior to the great pre-existance council when he was not the same in stature as he is now; that sometime subsequent to the council he ascended to his current station.

Is that what you are talking about?

Yes, that is what I was talking about.

while Christ is the God of the Old Testament (the creator) there was a time, prior to the great pre-existance council when he was not the same in stature as he is now

While Christ was “not the same in stature as He is now”, He was still God. If you will take the time to read through everything I have said you will probably see what I am trying to say and then agree with me. Or at least I hope so.

Or would it make it easier for everybody to understand what I mean if I simply say that as long as Jesus has existed, He has always been God? Sheesh, why is it so hard for everybody (seemingly) to understand what I am saying?

[Ray]

Originally posted by Maureen@ Aug 8 2004, 07:08 PM

Excuse me! You're telling me I'm not allowed to post what I post because you don't want to bother reading it, or try to deduce what it might mean? If you are capable of discerning truth then why ask the question of What are you trying to say, Maureen? Why ask if you already know?

Maureen,

You seemed to be replying only to me, and I simply meant that I would prefer you state things simply. I did not mean to imply that you are not allowed to post whatever you want to post for the benefit of other people.

And while I did say that I am capable of discerning the truth in whatever you are saying, I did not mean to imply that I will always understand what you are thinking. Words are reflections of an idea, and I may not always think about what you are thinking unless you state what you are thinking so that I can understand you.

Seriously Ray, the term I AM is a reference to God. Jesus separates himself from Abraham by saying before Abraham even existed Jesus existed as God. You believe that Abraham and all mankind also existed before the beginning of their earthly existence. But the Exodus scripture makes the distinction between Abraham's existence and Jesus' existence. Abraham at one point did not exist and Jesus is God (I AM) so he has always existed. Hence Abraham is not eternal in the sense that Jesus is eternal and therefore God.

First, thank you for restating what you meant. Since you didn’t mention the pre-mortal life of Abraham it didn’t occur to me that you were thinking about this.

My understanding of what Jesus meant when He speaking to those “Jews” and revealing Himself as the “I AM” is that He was telling them that He was that person they worshipped and that He had pre-eminence before Abraham. Those “Jews” were holding Abraham in high esteem and considering themselves to be heirs of the promise made to Abraham, not realizing that Jesus [Jehovah] “had been around” before Abraham and was the one who had given that promise to Abraham.

In other words, I do not believe this was an all encompassing revelation about who existed before who, but about who was pre-eminent. Jehovah had glory and honor before Abraham, and was the person who blessed Abraham, so if those “Jews” expected to also be heirs of the promise, they should look to the person who had first promised the blessing.

[Snow]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Aug 8 2004, 10:27 PM

Snow,

Of course it helps to have a relatively modern religion, since record keeping (and communication in general)has been much improved these last few centuries.

Anyways, until the Church Archives are open to professional non-mormon scholars, as well as the so-called mysterious "vault", I'll remain a skeptic on the "openess" of Mormonism.

By all mean then, remain a skeptic. I am certain that there are a good many things the Chruch keeps private. It is your reasoning that intrigues me. You lament openness in the LDS Church while more is known about the Church than practically any other religion, yet you now say you are Catholic while the secretiveness of the Catholic Church is unparalleled - Vatican Library and the secret archives Your concerned about morality in LDS Church leadership and yet you are... (nuff said). You say the the LDS Church is counterfeit because of its lack of longevity but your own criteria makes your new church counterfeit to the Jews...

[Ray]

Originally posted by Maureen+ Aug 8 2004, 12:46 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Maureen @ Aug 8 2004, 12:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I am!”160 Then they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out from the temple area. (John 8:58-59

<!--QuoteBegin--Maureen@ Aug 8 2004, 07:08 PM

Seriously Ray, the term I AM is a reference to God. Jesus separates himself from Abraham by saying before Abraham even existed Jesus existed as God. You believe that Abraham and all mankind also existed before the beginning of their earthly existence. But the John scripture makes the distinction between Abraham's existence and Jesus' existence. Abraham at one point did not exist and Jesus is God (I AM) so he has always existed. Hence Abraham is not eternal in the sense that Jesus is eternal and therefore God.

Btw, the quote you referenced from John 8:58 isn’t a reference to the existence of Abraham, at least not in any translation of the Bible that I have found.

The King James Version translates it as:

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

The Common English Version translates it as:

Jesus answered, I tell you for certain that even before Abraham was, I was, and I am.

The New International Version translates it as:

I tell you the truth, Jesus answered, before Abraham was born, I am!

The New American Standard Bible translates it as:

Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.

And Young’s Literal Translation translates it as:

Jesus said to them, Verily, verily, I say to you, Before Abraham's coming -- I am;

I can’t find a version that translates that as “existence”, and most of them translate it as a reference to birth. And if you still have questions about whether or not “birth” is the beginning of our existence, check the following scriptures under the topic: MAN, ANTEMORTAL EXISTENCE OF

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Ray+Aug 11 2004, 09:26 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ray @ Aug 11 2004, 09:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Maureen@ Aug 8 2004, 12:46 PM

Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I am!”160 Then they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out from the temple area. (John 8:58-59

I can’t find a version that translates that as “existence”, and most of them translate it as a reference to birth.

My version is from the NET Bible at:

http://netbible.bible.org/

The phrase before Abraham came into existence is interpreted from the Greek before Abraham was.

Dictionary.com defines was and be as thus:

was

v.

First and third person singular past indicative of be.

be

1. To exist in actuality; have life or reality: I think, therefore I am.

Hope that helps.

M.

[Snow]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Aug 8 2004, 10:27 PM

...I'll remain a skeptic on the "openess" of Mormonism.

Here is more on LDS scholarship:

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,5950...5083533,00.html