Time Magazine Article

[prisonchaplain]

<div class='quotemain'>

John 4:24

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. KJV

The only problem is that if we carry the definition of God as purely a spirit being from the first part of the verse to the second, one must conclude that only a purely spirit being can worship God, and since we have physical bodies we must either shed them or be prevented from worshiping God in mortality.

There is nothing in this verse that keeps those of us WITH spirits from worshiping Him who IS spirit.

If by subordinate you mean he received his spirit and physical body from God the Father, then yeah, I guess you could call that subordinationism.

If the Father CREATED the Son, then the Son is not co-eternal with the Father. He is absolutely subordinate. He is the creation of the Father.

But their spirit bodies, and glorified physical bodies are composed of the same matter or essence. Do we believe God had his glorified body before Jesus? Sure. Does that mean they can't be made of the same "stuff?" Nope. My dad had his body before me, but we both have the same anatomy/physiology. So it is with the Father and Son. How can one being spawn a different type of being? A mammal never gave birth to a reptile, etc... Just to be clear about LDS views. :)

But if Jesus gets his start from one who had no start, then he's not of the same nature or essence. If I understand this correctly, Jesus may have become immortal, but he is forever subordinate to the Heavenly Father, in that he is a created being.

LDS writer B.H. Roberts recognized the divergence here with not only Christianity but all religions. In his book, Mormon Doctrine of Deity, pp. iii-iv, he describes the Father and Son as two Gods involved in creation, and he says that the revelation of Joseph Smith challenged the views of God held by Christians, Muslims, Jews, and even pagans.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Hello to you too Dr. T, I enjoyed reading and thinking about your post. I have lots to say, so I'll just dive in.

The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."

No offense, but using the Jews' reaction here to mean they understood Jesus's claims of divinity as a Nicene declaration is a clumsy argument. I gotta take this argument blow-by-blow because there's alot that needs to be addressed. :)

It's interesting that he didn't say something like, "No, no, you've misunderstood me. I only meant that as an expression of unity of will." He is, after all, about to be killed over this "misunderstanding."

And the Son of God would be afraid of angry Jews? The creator of heaven and earth, intimidated by disgruntled rabbis? This whole argument relies too much on Jesus's being too human, or weak and afraid. Of course he's not going to change his tune when things heat up!

"Has it not been written in your Law, 'I SAID, YOU ARE GODS'? If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'? If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father."

Okay, this verse seems to bear out the LDS view of the Godhead, not the Nicene view. One, because it's an example of mortals (those being addressed in Psalms) being called "gods" (GASP!) even though they're clearly subject to the Father (but that's another discussion).

Second, if the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are essentially (dare I say ontologically) one God, it seems rather circular and unnecessary for Jesus to say, "I am one with myself. If I don't do my works, don't believe me. If I do do my works, believe the works are great, so that eventually you'll know that I'm in me and me is in I."

Wha...?

What did the Jews to whom Jesus was speaking, the people who shared His language, who used the same language every day and who did not need to consult lexicons to figure out what His words meant, who intimately shared His culture and understanding of the Old Testament, who knew the immediate context of His remarks, what did they think He meant?

Unless I'm mistaken, Jesus had to explain his parables to even his closest disciples who knew him far more intimately than these rabble-rousers here mentioned...yet they somehow can explain to you and me what Jesus really meant? Hmmm, well I have to admit I never thought I'd hear a Catholic (Dan) take a Jew's word on what the founder of Christianity really meant in John 10:30. Interesting theory though.

No, the real problem with this is several assumptions you lumped into the above quoted paragraph. Let me identify the false assumptions for those who may be doing a cursory reading only. Your main points above why the Jews who wanted to kill Jesus would understand what he meant better than you or I:

1.) They shared his language...okay, but words have a connotative meaning and denotative meaning. When I say 'heaven,' a common English word, both you and I understand it to mean something very different. So when Jesus says he is "one" with the Father, both he (who really is one with the Father) and the Jews (the ones who wanted to kill him) understood it to mean the same thing? That's a speculation at best, but let's continue.

2.) They didn't need lexicons to know what Jesus meant...sorta the same dilemma as above. A word can have a denotative meaning (the "dictionary" definition), and a connotative meaning (like when I say "cool" after watching a DVD which is actually room-temperature).

3.) They shared his understanding of the Old Testament...uh, sorry, not even close. If they both understood scriptures the same way, why didn't Jesus's quoting of Psalms (I have said, Ye are gods) calm them down? Shouldn't they have said, "Oh, y'know what Jesus? Sorry, we almost forgot that we share the same language, culture and hence doctrinal understanding. You're saying that in the Old Testament God called certain of His covenant people gods, and you're only saying you're the SON of God, so our anger is really unfounded."

All in all, this line of thinking blows my mind (I'm being connotative, my mind has not physically moved since reading your post :)) What you or Dan or whoever is asking me to do is take my doctrinal cue from the people who didn't believe in Jesus's divinity at all, who in fact wanted to stone him old-fashioned-like. I might as well tell you that to really understand Joseph Smith you should go pick up a book by an anti-Mormon because they both know the Bible, both speak English and both lived in America.

How does that make sense?

If they thought He was only saying that He and the Father were one in purpose and He was doing God's work, they would have said:

"Amen to that brother! And so are we!"

You really think the Jews understood Jesus to be saying he was of the same essence or same being as their Old Testament God and that's what got them riled up? How about teachings like this, from within the very chapter we're contemplating:

"No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father." (John 10:18)

"And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." (John 10:28)

Here are two pretty radical views within the framework of Judaism. Why, I'd even wager they'd warrant a death penalty for blasphemy. What did Jesus say that got them so worked up?

First, he taught that he had power to raise himself from the dead...that was blasphemy to the Jews, because power over life and death only belonged to the God they worshipped.

Second, he taught that he could grant eternal life to others...again, a power they believed was the sole property of God.

So their objection wasn't, "Hey, you're saying you're ontologically the same being as our God and dangit, that's one thing we won't stand for! Crucify him!" But when faced with a carpenter's son who taught he had the same power as their God...that would certainly justify their condemnation of him for "making himself God." Their objection had nothing to do with ontology, essences or modalities. They were outraged at his claims of power on a level with their God...power over life and death. That's not the same thing as a philosophical disagreement. Heck, the Pharisees and Sadducees disagreed on theological/philosophical stuff like that, and they didn't crucify each other.

No, they hated Jesus because he literally was the Son of the Father, with the same power as the Father, and his teachings undermined their power over the people. I do not accept the Jews' understanding of Jesus's claims of divinity as accurate. When I say Jews, I mean those who sought to kill him, not all who practiced Judaism.

He made it clear that that He was claiming equality with God. He didn't pacify them, He only stirred them up more. He reminded them that He had claimed to be the very Son of God. Nowadays that falls easily on the ear, because we've heard it so often. To them, it was an extraordinary claim.

In their mind, claiming he was somehow the literal offspring of their God may have been blasphemous enough, but claiming he had the power their God had was unbearable. Seriously, if they understood Jesus to be saying, "I am the Son of your God, but only metaphorically...ontologically, esentially we're the same being," they should have worshipped him. If they honestly took his claims of unity with the Father as an ontological claim, if Jesus was merely claiming to be their God, why did they crucify him?

Becuase he taught plainly that the Father was a separate God, that he was that God's literal Son in the flesh, and that he had inherited divine power from his Father which made him a God too. Not exactly typical synagogue fare at the time.

So what I hear you saying, is that you think the Jews understood Jesus' claims of unity with God the Father as meaning he was God the Father (the very same being) and that's why they killed him. I think the Jews killed Jesus because he claimed to be equal to God the Father in power (not to mention the whole, "God is the literal Father of my physical body" claim).

It is a stretch...to say the least...to interpret John 10 to mean the Jews took Jesus' claims as a Nicene declaration. They understood no such thing, they weren't Greek philosophers, they were students of the Old Testament and no one...NO ONE...could be allowed to claim they were equal to the God who told them, "There is no God beside me."

[Guest ApostleKnight]

There is nothing in this verse that keeps those of us WITH spirits from worshiping Him who IS spirit.

It's a matter of interpretation (which is why there are over 200 entries in my local phone book under the heading, CHURCHES-CHRISTIAN).

If the Father CREATED the Son, then the Son is not co-eternal with the Father. He is absolutely subordinate. He is the creation of the Father.

Not true. To keep this short, LDS doctrine is that resurrected beings have an "intelligence" (the part that makes us "us"), a spirit body, and a physical body all inseparably joined. Also, LDS doctrine is that intelligence was not created or made and in fact, cannot be. In other words, every being whether spiritual or physical or exalted, has at its core an individual "intelligence" which has always existed and was not made.

Hence, the Father created the Son's spiritual and physical body, but both of their intelligences have always existed and hence are co-eternal. This being an LDS doctrine, I don't expect you to say, "Oh, why didn't you say so?" But within the LDS doctrinal framework, the Father and Son are co-eternal (just as all of us are)...it's our spiritual and physical bodies that are created and hence, can be "time-stamped" I guess you could say.

But if Jesus gets his start from one who had no start, then he's not of the same nature or essence. If I understand this correctly, Jesus may have become immortal, but he is forever subordinate to the Heavenly Father, in that he is a created being.

See the above explanation as it relates to this. It's not sufficient to say that LDS believe Jesus was created by the Father. We must define which part of Jesus was created by the Father...his spirit and (now exalted) mortal body. But LDS do not teach God created Jesus entirely from scratch as it were...intelligence was not created or made, neither indeed can it be (D&C 93:29)

B.H. Roberts...says that the revelation of Joseph Smith challenged the views of God held by Christians, Muslims, Jews, and even pagans.

Challenging makes him wrong? I don't see how this comment relates to the accuracy or inaccuracy of LDS doctrine. But you're right...Joseph Smith didn't just offer a different Bible interpretation...he turned the religious landscape upside down (of course I think he was turning it right-side up but that's my opinion :)).

[Ray]

Great work, ApostleKnight.

But one more thought that wasn't brought up is the fact that Jesus was and is God, the one the Jews and all of Israel knew as Jehovah, so when the Jews understood Jesus to be saying that He really was God, that is really what He was saying.

Or in other words, had not the Son of God revealed the Father to us, all of us would know about only Jesus as the only true God to be worshipped, and none of us would know about our Father... since our memories of Him are concealed.

And btw, since I don't believe I can say this too often, the only way to know God is through an assurance from God... although good reasoning may help us to think and consider the thoughts we have as we seek God's assurance through prayer.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

But one more thought that wasn't brought up is the fact that Jesus was and is God, the one the Jews and all of Israel knew as Jehovah, so when the Jews understood Jesus to be saying that He really was God, that is really what He was saying.

I plan on dealing with this fact in a separate thread. It's a tricky distinction that deserves its own thread with scriptural support.

[Ray]

Heh, all interpretations involve a "tricky distinction", and to know the truth we must have an assurance from God.

But I congratulate you and your willingness to help people know what they cannot know without that assurance from God. :)

[Lindy]

But if Jesus gets his start from one who had no start, then he's not of the same nature or essence. If I understand this correctly, Jesus may have become immortal, but he is forever subordinate to the Heavenly Father, in that he is a created being.

I have really been enjoying reading this thread.... one comment I would like to make... and it's totally off the wall.... but it's only my view of something.

Forensic science has found a lot about DNA... I would like to apply some of that knowledge to how I feel about The Father and Son.

Doesn't matter where God our Heavenly Father got His start ... He still exists as He is. And as a part of Him...Christ will have some of his "essence"....some of His "DNA" as you would. Some kind of genetic inheritance. As we, as mortal humans, also receive from our parents. I have always veiwed Christ as a separate part of God... got me strange looks in church classes as a youth.

As to taking things out of context as per the starting point of this whole thread.....

I read what was quoted from Joseph Smith's King Follet Discourse, made in April 7, 1844 : "I am going to enquire after God" meaning to me that he (Smith) hadn't yet inquired......

I'm not worried about the original starting point of God...... I'm not going to worry about media hunters doing whatever they can to defame a prophet of God, I am however ashamed for those glory seekers to capitalize on a few words spoken from an elderly man... I can see the arquements... "but he's supposed to be man of God... a Prophet" If I didnt' believe he was a prophet... I wouldn't be here.... but I realize that he is an elderly man and as such...has lapses of memory here and there..... I love him no matter what... But again...that's just me. The media witch hunt only brings me closer to what I know as the truth... and that is because of the assurance I get from God

[boyando]

<div class='quotemain'>

But if Jesus gets his start from one who had no start, then he's not of the same nature or essence. If I understand this correctly, Jesus may have become immortal, but he is forever subordinate to the Heavenly Father, in that he is a created being.

I have really been enjoying reading this thread.... one comment I would like to make... and it's totally off the wall.... but it's only my view of something.

Forensic science has found a lot about DNA... I would like to apply some of that knowledge to how I feel about The Father and Son.

Doesn't matter where God our Heavenly Father got His start ... He still exists as He is. And as a part of Him...Christ will have some of his "essence"....some of His "DNA" as you would. Some kind of genetic inheritance. As we, as mortal humans, also receive from our parents. I have always veiwed Christ as a separate part of God... got me strange looks in church classes as a youth.

As to taking things out of context as per the starting point of this whole thread.....

I read what was quoted from Joseph Smith's King Follet Discourse, made in April 7, 1844 : "I am going to enquire after God" meaning to me that he (Smith) hadn't yet inquired......

I'm not worried about the original starting point of God...... I'm not going to worry about media hunters doing whatever they can to defame a prophet of God, I am however ashamed for those glory seekers to capitalize on a few words spoken from an elderly man... I can see the arquements... "but he's supposed to be man of God... a Prophet" If I didnt' believe he was a prophet... I wouldn't be here.... but I realize that he is an elderly man and as such...has lapses of memory here and there..... I love him no matter what... But again...that's just me. The media witch hunt only brings me closer to what I know as the truth... and that is because of the assurance I get from God

Always Love what you have to say Lindy.

Keep up the smiles.

[Dr T]

Hi AK/all,

Lindy, I’m glad you are enjoying this thread (as am I) and I hope others are too. Ray continues with the refrain, “Only God can reveal it to you.” So with that, please allow me to offer up a quick prayer before we continue:

Father God, I come before you today with thankfulness. I thank you for who you are, your majesty, your greatness and willingness to be aware of us, mere human creatures. I thank you for the opportunity to have theological discussions with some very nice and sincere people. I thank you for allowing us to participate in discussion such as these and to do so without the fear of physical retribution/danger because of our beliefs (like so many in the world). I thank you for the ability to utilize the brains that you have blessed us with. I thank you for sending the Holy Spirit to help guide us in our discernment of your revelation. I humbly ask that you bless this conversation and ask that you continue it with the goal of truly seeking you out. Please do not allow this friendly conversation to turn negative, lead to verbal hostility and animosity or be wasted/idle talk. I ask that you humble me through this process and help me learn all I can about whatever it is you want to teach me through this. Please help me be reflective and thoughtful. Help me to be respectful and polite even in light of differences that we might discover. Please allow others to feel comfortable participating in sharing their ideas and beliefs. I ask that you guide us all in our understanding of what you would have us know at this time. Please open my eyes, ears, and mind (thoughts) about what we discuss. I also ask that you do the same for everyone who might be interested in this thread. I thank you for ApostleKnight, PC, Ray, Shanstress, Snow and others that you have brought to this site. I ask that you help this discussion benefit all involved for your ultimate glory. Please obstruct any Satan lead attempts to end this journey of understanding. Again, I ask that you allow us to learn whatever it is you will have us learn and understand. In Jesus’ holy name, I pray. Amen.

Thanks to all of you for that opportunity. I understand that AK and I have been doing most of the “talking” on this thread and I want to make sure you all know that does not mean that you would be intruding on someone else’s conversation. I’d be happy to hear your ideas so when you feel led, please share.

Lets continue. AK said,

No offense, but using the Jews' reaction here to mean they understood Jesus's claims of divinity as a Nicene declaration is a clumsy argument. I gotta take this argument blow-by-blow because there's alot that needs to be addressed.

You’re right. There is a lot that needs to be addressed there. I’ll respond to your response with some clarification (and a little bit of nit picking-all good natured, not meant to offend).

"Using the Jews' reaction here to mean they understood Jesus's claims of divinity as a Nicene declaration ... "

I think I know what you are saying about the Nicean claim here and I wanted to interject something in case someone understood it differently than me. If you were talking about the Jews not understanding Jesus to be saying that He is part of a Triune Godhead, then I would have to agree. They didn’t know or think He meant that. They knew he was making himself out to be God, period. Some might read your response and say, “The creeds weren’t even developed until later so why is AK bringing up Nicea?” I don’t think you are talking directly about the council in your response but about the understanding of the Trinity that has developed.

The argument above is

1) the contemporary audience was in a far better position to understand what He (Jesus) meant than we are, and

2) if they misunderstood Jesus, He would have corrected them. Instead of correcting them, He strenghtened His claim. He said, in essence, "You're right. I am claiming to be God. But given Who I am, what's wrong with that?

And the Son of God would be afraid of angry Jews? The creator of heaven and earth, intimidated by disgruntled rabbis? This whole argument relies too much on Jesus's being too human, or weak and afraid. Of course he's not going to change his tune when things heat up!

There wasn’t a suggestion that Jesus was afraid. Throughout the Gospels there are incidents when Jesus' life was threatened. I do not think fear was the central concern as did the "timing." He wasn't "afraid of angry Jews. . ." He was preserving the hour and manner of His death. Respectfully, AK, you are missing the point. The argument is “If they were ready to kill Him over a mere misunderstanding, why would He just rile them up even more instead of correcting their misunderstanding?” That would imply a complete lack of respect for His audience.

It follows that Jesus riled them up because there was not a misunderstanding. He fearlessly proclaimed the truth. He did not fearlessly "rouse the rabble" for the sake of mischief.

Okay, this verse seems to bear out the LDS view of the Godhead, not the Nicene view. One, because it's an example of mortals (those being addressed in Psalms) being called "gods" (GASP!) even though they're clearly subject to the Father (but that's another discussion).

AK/all if you use a concordance to check from Genesis to Revelation, you will find that the Bible never uses "gods" in the plural except to designate things that are not God.

Now you have indeed gone away because you longed greatly for your father's house; but why did you steal my gods? Genesis 31:30

The one with whom you find your gods shall not live; in the presence of our kinsmen point out what is yours among my belongings and take it for yourself." For Jacob did not know that Rachel had stolen them. Genesis 31:32

So Jacob said to his household and to all who were with him, "Put away the foreign gods which are among you, and purify yourselves and change your garments ... Genesis 35:2

So they gave to Jacob all the foreign gods which they had and the rings which were in their ears, and Jacob hid them under the oak which was near Shechem. Genesis 35:4

For I will go through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments-- I am the LORD. Exodus 12:12

Now I know that the LORD is greater than all the gods; indeed, it was proven when they dealt proudly against the people. Exodus 18:11

You shall have no other gods before Me. Exodus 20:3

You shall not make other gods besides Me; gods of silver or gods of gold, you shall not make for yourselves. Exodus 20:23

Now concerning everything which I have said to you, be on your guard; and do not mention the name of other gods, nor let them be heard from your mouth. Exodus 23:13

You shall not worship their gods, nor serve them, nor do according to their deeds; but you shall utterly overthrow them and break their sacred pillars in pieces. Exodus 23:24

You shall make no covenant with them or with their gods. Exodus 23:32

They shall not live in your land, because they will make you sin against Me; for if you serve their gods, it will surely be a snare to you. Exodus 23:33

... otherwise you might make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land and they would play the harlot with their gods and sacrifice to their gods, and someone might invite you to eat of his sacrifice, and you might take some of his daughters for your sons, and his daughters might play the harlot with their gods and cause your sons also to play the harlot with their gods. You shall make for yourself no molten gods. Exodus 34:15 - 17

Do not turn to idols or make for yourselves molten gods; I am the LORD your God. Numbers 25:2

... while the Egyptians were burying all their firstborn whom the LORD had struck down among them. The LORD had also executed judgments on their gods. Numbers 33:4

There you will serve gods, the work of man's hands, wood and stone, which neither see nor hear nor eat nor smell. Deuteronomy 4:28

You shall have no other gods before Me. Deuteronomy 5:7

You shall not follow other gods, any of the gods of the peoples who surround you ... Deuteronomy 6:14

For they will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods; then the anger of the LORD will be kindled against you and He will quickly destroy you. Deuteronomy 7:4

...

(From this point I'm going to take only isolated examples, rather than quote every instance.)

... and have cast their gods into the fire, for they were not gods but the work of men's hands, wood and stone. So they have destroyed them. 2 Kings 19:18

For all the gods of the peoples are idols, But the LORD made the heavens. 1 Chronicles 16:26

But if you turn away and forsake My statutes and My commandments which I have set before you, and go and serve other gods and worship them ... 2 Chronicles 7:19

So now you intend to resist the kingdom of the LORD through the sons of David, being a great multitude and having with you the golden calves which Jeroboam made for gods for you. 2 Chronicles 13:8

Have you not driven out the priests of the LORD, the sons of Aaron and the Levites, and made for yourselves priests like the peoples of other lands? Whoever comes to consecrate himself with a young bull and seven rams, even he may become a priest of what are no gods. 2 Chronicles 13:9

Do you indeed speak righteousness, O gods? Do you judge uprightly, O sons of men? Psalm 58:1

(David calls men who execute judgment, i.e., actual judges, "gods." But he also makes it clear they are just men.)

I said, "You are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High." Psalm 82:6

(Again, David refers to judges as "gods" while making clear that they are also just men.)

They will be turned back and be utterly put to shame, who trust in idols, Who say to molten images,” You are our gods." Isaiah 42:17

I will pronounce My judgments on them concerning all their wickedness, whereby they have forsaken Me and have offered sacrifices to other gods, and worshiped the works of their own hands. Jeremiah 1:16

But where are your gods which you made for yourself? Let them arise, if they can save you in the time of your trouble; for according to the number of your cities are your gods, O Judah. Jeremiah 2:28

Why should I pardon you? Your sons have forsaken Me and sworn by those who are not gods when I had fed them to the full, they committed adultery and trooped to the harlot's house. Jeremiah 5:7

When the crowds saw what Paul had done, they raised their voice, saying in the Lycaonian language, "The gods have become like men and have come down to us." And they began calling Barnabas, Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker. The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates, and wanted to offer sacrifice with the crowds.

But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their robes (Note: Signifying that they had heard blasphemy.) and rushed out into the crowd, crying out and saying, "Men, why are you doing these things? We are also men of the same nature as you ... Acts 14:11 - 15

You see and hear that not only in Ephesus, but in almost all of Asia, this Paul has persuaded and turned away a considerable number of people, saying that gods made with hands are no gods at all. Acts 19:26

For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords ... 1 Corinthians 8:5

However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods. Galatians 4:8

Etc., etc., etc.

Second, if the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are essentially (dare I say ontologically) one God, it seems rather circular and unnecessary for Jesus to say, "I am one with myself. If I don't do my works, don't believe me. If I do do my works, believe the works are great, so that eventually you'll know that I'm in me and me is in I."

That might be true if they were not only one God, but also only one person, but they are not only one person, they are three persons.

Jesus was not saying, "I am one with Myself," because the Son is not the Father. To say that the Son is the Father is Sabellianism, and Sabellianism is not orthodox Christianity and actually contradicted at Nicea.

Unless I'm mistaken, Jesus had to explain his parables to even his closest disciples who knew him far more intimately than these rabble-rousers here mentioned...yet they somehow can explain to you and me what Jesus really meant? Hmmm, well I have to admit I never thought I'd hear a Catholic (Dan) take a Jew's word on what the founder of Christianity really meant in John 10:30. Interesting theory though.

The "founder of Christianity" was a Jew, so this is a very odd remark, AK. Maybe I’m just misunderstanding you here.

I also think you missed the point on the parables.

Everyone knew exactly what the parables meant. They all knew what a "virgin" was, what a "wedding" was, what "wheat and tares" were, what a "talent" was, what a "sower" was, etc. Nobody had any question about what the parables meant. The question was, what did they teach? The question was what the message of the parables was. That was where the confusion and misunderstanding occurred. The meanings of the words were never in doubt. John 10:30 is not a parable. There is no hidden meaning. There are just the words themselves and what they meant.

1.) They shared his language...okay, but words have a connotative meaning and denotative meaning. When I say 'heaven,' a common English word, both you and I understand it to mean something very different. So when Jesus says he is "one" with the Father, both he (who really is one with the Father) and the Jews (the ones who wanted to kill him) understood it to mean the same thing? That's a speculation at best, but let's continue.

The fact that the Jews He addressed were immersed in the language and culture of Jesus is precisely why they were in a better position than us to understand the connotative meanings of His words, AK. (But see below.)

It is no speculation to say that the Jews understood what Jesus meant - if they hadn't, He'd have corrected their misunderstanding. Instead, He emphasizes it's truth.

2.) They didn't need lexicons to know what Jesus meant...sorta the same dilemma as above.

What "dilemma" AK?

A word can have a denotative meaning (the "dictionary" definition), and a connotative meaning (like when I say "cool" after watching a DVD which is actually room-temperature).

I hear what you are trying to say but that is not an example of a connotative meaning. It's just a pair of different definitions of the same word. For clarification, Connotations are associations implied by a word in addition to it's literal meaning. They are not alternate definitions.

If we take "cool" to mean "nifty, marvelous and swell," that's a denotative meaning. Many words have multiple denotative meanings.

If we say "Hollywood" and imply movie stars, studios and glamor, those are connotative meanings.

(If we say "Hollywood" and literally mean movie stars, studios and glamor, that's called metonymy. When you read in the newspaper, "The White House said today," that's a metonymy.)

3.) They shared his understanding of the Old Testament...uh, sorry, not even close. If they both understood scriptures the same way, why didn't Jesus's quoting of Psalms (I have said, Ye are gods) calm them down? Shouldn't they have said, "Oh, y'know what Jesus? Sorry, we almost forgot that we share the same language, culture and hence doctrinal understanding. You're saying that in the Old Testament God called certain of His covenant people gods, and you're only saying you're the SON of God, so our anger is really unfounded."

Jesus made an a fortiori argument.

"Jesus answered them, 'Has it not been written in your Law, "I SAID, YOU ARE GODS"?'"

This was a typical rabbinic method of argument. He starts with a passage from which He reasons. In the Old Testament, human judges were called "gods."

"If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken) ... "

Even people who just received the word of God were called "gods."

"... do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?"

If those who merely received the word of God were called "gods," all the more it is right to call He who was sanctified by the Father and sent into the world by the Father the "Son of God."

They didn't misunderstand. They knew perfectly well what He meant. He wasn't minimizing His nature and status, He was proclaiming it by arguing in a very familiar form.

We have heard, "Son of God" so many times that it seems to mean almost nothing to us. Jesus' audience were shocked by the phrase, "Son of God." They knew it meant equality with God. The claim to have been "sanctified and sent" by the Father may not mean much to some people, but to the Jews it was an enormously significant claim. Jesus was claiming to be even more than a prophet like Isaiah.

All in all, this line of thinking blows my mind (I'm being connotative, my mind has not physically moved since reading your post)

No, you’re being "figurative," not connotative.

What you or Dan or whoever is asking me to do is take my doctrinal cue from the people who didn't believe in Jesus's divinity at all, who in fact wanted to stone him old-fashioned-like.

That's just the point - they didn't believe in His divinity at all. They did know that He WAS proclaiming His own divinity, they just didn't believe Him. They rejected His divinity because they knew He was claiming divinity. If He hadn't claimed it, they would have had nothing to reject.

The question is not whether they believed Him, the question is whether they knew what He meant. They certainly did.

I might as well tell you that to really understand Joseph Smith you should go pick up a book by an anti-Mormon because they both know the Bible, both speak English and both lived in America.

We aren't reading anti-Christian tracts when we read John 10, we are reading a dialogue between Jesus and an audience. Whether the audience believed Him or not, they knew what He meant.

You really think the Jews understood Jesus to be saying he was of the same essence or same being as their Old Testament God and that's what got them riled up?

They understood Jesus to be saying He was God. That was what riled them up. We know that's what they understood because John 10 explicitly says so. "... You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." John 10:33

"No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father." John 10:18

"And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." John 10:28

Here are two pretty radical views within the framework of Judaism. Why, I'd even wager they'd warrant a death penalty for blasphemy.

I’d advise against that wager AK. We know how the Jews reacted. We know exactly how they reacted. In response to John 10:18 they said He was "insane." (John 10:20). They did not accuse Him of blasphemy or try to stone Him for that.

When did they pick up stones to stone Him? Not until He said, "I and the Father are one." That's what the text says.

What did they say riled them up?

"... You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." John 10:33

When did He claim to be God?

When He said, "I and the Father are one."

Again, that's not speculation, it's what the text says.

What did Jesus say that got them so worked up?

First, he taught that he had power to raise himself from the dead...that was blasphemy to the Jews, because power over life and death only belonged to the God they worshipped.

Good thinking but what does the text actually say? The text tells us what their reaction was - they said Jesus was cuckoo. Being cuckoo was not a capital offense. I’m glad it’s not in the U.S. either-I would really be in trouble. .

Second, he taught that he could grant eternal life to others...again, a power they believed was the sole property of God.

Nope. We can't ignoring the text A.K. They did not pick up stones when Jesus said that. They picked them up when Jesus said, "I and the Father are one." We don't have to "speculate" about it, we need only follow the text.

So their objection wasn't, "Hey, you're saying you're ontologically the same being as our God and dangit, that's one thing we won't stand for! Crucify him!"

Another nit picky thing-They didn't say "crucify Him" at all. They tried to stone Him. And that for saying that He was God, not for a theological analysis of the Godhead. Like Joseph Smith putting "Jesus Christ" into Genesis 6 (another topic we should tackle later), it appears that you are trying to put the language of Nicea into the ministry of Jesus.

But when faced with a carpenter's son who taught he had the same power as their God...

Strike 3 (sorry if that sounded rude-I was just trying to keep it good-humored. If that was offensive let me know and I will not say that again). They did not accuse Him of claiming to have the same power as God. They said, "You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." That's not an interpretation, that's what the text says.

... that would certainly justify their condemnation of him for "making himself God.

I’m not concerned about the "justification" of their condemnation. What matters is what caused their condemnation - Jesus saying, "I and the Father are one." The text tells us that it was when Jesus said that that they picked up stones to stone Him. Not before.

Their objection had nothing to do with ontology, essences or modalities.

Your right; nobody said it did. The whole Nicea piece here comes from a combination of verses that show traces of the Trinity.

They were outraged at his claims of power on a level with their God...power over life and death.

The text tells us what enraged them, AK. Not Jesus claiming to have power, but "You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." We don't have to guess, speculate or wonder, the text tells us.

That's not the same thing as a philosophical disagreement.

True. Nobody said it was a "philosophical disagreement."

Heck, the Pharisees and Sadducees disagreed on theological/philosophical stuff like that, and they didn't crucify each other.

(Nitpick #1000) Neither the Pharisees nor the Sadducees nor any other Jew crucified anybody. That was a Roman punishment, not a Jewish punishment.

No, they hated Jesus because he literally was the Son of the Father, with the same power as the Father, and his teachings undermined their power over the people.

Again, the text tells us why they hated Him. It isn't ambiguous, it tells us very clearly:

"You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." Not the "literal Son of God," not "one Who undermines our power," but because He claimed to be God.

I do not accept the Jews' understanding of Jesus's claims of divinity as accurate.

Jesus accepted it sir and I have a bias that He was in a better position to know.

One of Dan’s points was that “Jesus made it clear that He was claiming equality with God.” He didn't pacify them, He only stirred them up more. He reminded them that He had claimed to be the very Son of God. Nowadays that falls easily on the ear, because we've heard it so often. To them, it was an extraordinary claim.

To which you replied,

In their mind, claiming he was somehow the literal offspring of their God may have been blasphemous enough ...

Jesus never made such a claim and whether or not it would have been blasphemous is besides the point. An observation about your approach here that is interesting to me, you say that you are not satisfied with reading Nicea back into Jesus' ministry, but its ok to read Mormon theology back into it. Why is that? If you are saying that it is not in the text, how do you justify it? We have the text in this case. We know what He said.

but claiming he had the power their God had was unbearable.

No sir. We know that because they bore it. What they did not bear was His claim, "I and the Father are one."

Seriously, if they understood Jesus to be saying, "I am the Son of your God, but only metaphorically...ontologically, esentially we're the same being," they should have worshipped him.

No, if they had understood Him to be saying that, which they did not, they would have stoned Him! Understanding and believing are two different things.

If they honestly took his claims of unity with the Father as an ontological claim, if Jesus was merely claiming to be their God, why did they crucify him?

Forgive the broken record feel of this but “They didn't. The Romans did. As for why they condemned Him, it was for the simple reason that they disbelieved Him. They had no trouble understanding His basic claim; they rejected it.”

"You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."

Becuase he taught plainly that the Father was a separate God, that he was that God's literal Son in the flesh, and that he had inherited divine power from his Father which made him a God too.

I’d have to say that from my reading, none of that is to be found in John 10. I’m starting to think that you hit it on the head when you said, “it all comes down to whether or not you believe Joseph Smith.” I think we will have to start another thread on the topic of Joseph Smith. . If we research him and find out there are errors in his claims then all of this is a house of cards. If he can stand up to scrutiny, then you are building on a rock and should have no fears.

So what I hear you saying, is that you think the Jews understood Jesus' claims of unity with God the Father as meaning he was God the Father ...

No, Jesus made it clear on many occasions that He was not the Father.

"You heard that I said to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you ' If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." John 14:28

I don’t think that is accurate. We have no reason to think that they believed He was claiming to be the Father.

I think the Jews killed Jesus because he claimed to be equal to God the Father in power (not to mention the whole, "God is the literal Father of my physical body" claim).

Are you saying that you don’t think that Jesus nor the Jews meant what they said? In that case, we can speculate anything. Perhaps (tongue in cheek) they were really talking about last night's chariot races. Perhaps they were complaining about the price of bread. Perhaps they were having a cheerful discussion about the weather.

It is a stretch...to say the least...to interpret John 10 to mean the Jews took Jesus' claims as a Nicene declaration.

Yes, to think that they were quoting from Nicea about 300 years before the council took place would be a bit of a stretch. But as I have been trying to show, the concept of His claim to be God is clear.

They understood no such thing, they weren't Greek philosophers, they were students of the Old Testament and no one...NO ONE...could be allowed to claim they were equal to the God who told them, "There is no God beside me."

Somewhat of a “straw man,” sir. Nobody has claimed that John 10 was an exposition on the Nicene Creed.

In conclusion, even people with very little knowledge of the Bible or Christianity say that Jesus was a "great teacher." Great teachers get their points/message across. S/He addresses his/her students in a way that they understand. From your responses I would infer that Jesus was a poor teacher.

Hope none of this was taken as offensive. Just laying out the importance of not ignoring the Text and Context (the first two rules of good hermeneutics) of the passage.

Thanks,

Dr. T

[prisonchaplain]

It's a matter of interpretation (which is why there are over 200 entries in my local phone book under the heading, CHURCHES-CHRISTIAN).

AK, YOU were the one who said that the verse MUST be interpreted a certain (LDS) way. BTW, I doubt any of the 200 non-LDS churches would interpret the verse "God = a spirit, those who worship him must do so in spirit and in truth" to mean that either God is other than spirit, or if we are to worship him we must be spirits (only) too. Me thinks your "must" interpretation stands solo against those 200 other "churches-Christian."

Not true. To keep this short, LDS doctrine is that resurrected beings have an "intelligence" (the part that makes us "us"), a spirit body, and a physical body all inseparably joined. Also, LDS doctrine is that intelligence was not created or made and in fact, cannot be. In other words, every being whether spiritual or physical or exalted, has at its core an individual "intelligence" which has always existed and was not made.

Are you saying that there is an aspect of our existence which is co-eternal with the Father, and was not made by him???

Hence, the Father created the Son's spiritual and physical body, but both of their intelligences have always existed and hence are co-eternal. This being an LDS doctrine, I don't expect you to say, "Oh, why didn't you say so?" But within the LDS doctrinal framework, the Father and Son are co-eternal (just as all of us are)...it's our spiritual and physical bodies that are created and hence, can be "time-stamped" I guess you could say.

I've known for a long time that LDS believe in premortal existence, but did not know that that existence was in any way eternal--that there is an aspect of us that is not created by God. The teaching is fascinating and quite different from what I've understood.

Food for thought, today AK.

B.H. Roberts...says that the revelation of Joseph Smith challenged the views of God held by Christians, Muslims, Jews, and even pagans.

Challenging makes him wrong? I don't see how this comment relates to the accuracy or inaccuracy of LDS doctrine. But you're right...Joseph Smith didn't just offer a different Bible interpretation...he turned the religious landscape upside down (of course I think he was turning it right-side up but that's my opinion :)).

You rightly capture my observation that JS offered a set of teachings that had few if any roots in Christian history--including some teachings that, at least in Prof. Robinson's (BYU) view, are not signficantly addressed in the New Testament, either. Ultimately, this all comes back to the veracity of Joseph Smith's revelations and the validity of his restored gospel claims. Either he was righteous, and far more radically enlightened than Martin Luther dared be, or he was something else.

[prisonchaplain]

And btw, since I don't believe I can say this too often, the only way to know God is through an assurance from God... although good reasoning may help us to think and consider the thoughts we have as we seek God's assurance through prayer.

I've finally found a succinct translation for what you keep saying here, Ray

The call and response goes like this:

I can feel the love and power of God, tonight! Can I get a witness???

Amen! Preach it. Speak the truth!

Oh yes, glory! That love of God is seeping outta us now, amen?

Yes! I've got a witness! Keep tellin' it!

Or, to make it even shorter: "I have a witness."

[Ray]

prisonchaplain,

I do believe you may have received assurances from God regarding the truth on many issues, but there are still some truths you do not know and the only way you can know those truths is by receiving assurances from God on those issues.

And btw, I am only saying that you "may have received" assurances from God because it is possible that you believe the things you believe simply because you accept assurances from other people who say they have received assurances from God, and what they say combined with what you think simply "makes sense" and sounds "reasonable" to you.

For instance, if you accept the Bible simply because the people who wrote it claimed to be inspired by God and you simply accept whatever they say, as well as some other people who accept it and interpret it the way you interpret it, then you really don't have an assurance from God... although you may think that you do.

Or in other words, if you really believe you can know the truth by simply accepting the Bible, without receiving personal assurances from God to assure you that He inspired those words and how those words should be interpreted, then you still need to receive assurances from God to help you know the Bible was truly inspired by God and how you should truly interpret those words.

And then, once you know how to receive assurances from God, not only will you know the truth on those issues that you have asked God about, but as you continue to ask and receive His assurances you will also know the truth on any other issue you ask God about until you know all of the truth.

And btw, I also believe you should not be waiting until another one of us mortals manages to convince or assure you that you should pray to God to know the truth on any issue either, because knowing the Truth should be one of your goals if you truly want to know the truth about God... regardless of what anyone other than God has told you about Him or given their assurance about.

And that is all I have to say about that.

Now, to share a thought on an issue related to the topic of this thread, I think it may help you to know that we [LDS] do believe in only one God in the sense you seem to accept that idea, it’s just that we believe we can also say “Gods" because the true God is more than one person.

Or in other words, there is only one God in the sense that there is only one supreme being in all of existence, and we use the word “God” to refer to that being, but that being exists as more than one person... just as all who are "man" can be referred to as "men".

Anyway, I thought it might help you to see that we do seem to agree about that.

Oh, and one more thing. While learning is fun, and sharing our knowledge is fun, it's not really the point of this "game", because what will really matter is not how much we know, but what we did with the knowledge we had.

Anyway, take care brother. I sincerely hope you'll receive the best of all prizes. :)

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Dr. T, a proverb: Never argue with a fool: you won't convince them, and those watching won't know who the fool is.

While I don't think either of us is a fool, I do think our argument is in danger of looking foolish (because both of us seem to be missing the other's points). I'll be as brief as possible in responding to your points.

2) if they misunderstood Jesus, He would have corrected them. Instead of correcting them, He strenghtened His claim. He said, in essence, "You're right. I am claiming to be God. But given Who I am, what's wrong with that?

The misunderstanding is on our part. I don't think the Jews misinterpreted Jesus' remark; on the contrary, my point was they knew exactly what he was saying (I'm equal to God my Father in power/authority). I think your interpretation of the Jews' response in John 10 is what is incorrect. You keep repeating that Jesus would've corrected them if they'd misunderstood him. Since he didn't, they must've understood what Jesus meant. Fine, I agree. What we disagree on is what the Jews meant when they objected by saying, "thou makest thyself God" (forgive the paraphrase).

I'm saying I believe they meant this: "You're claiming to have powers like our God, and to be equal to our God, but there is only one God."

Unless I'm mistaken, you believe they meant: "You're claiming to be the God we worship, but you're a man, you can't be."

AK/all if you use a concordance to check from Genesis to Revelation, you will find that the Bible never uses "gods" in the plural except to designate things that are not God.

If your intent in posting that exhaustive list of scriptures was to show that the LDS concept that mankind can become like God through Jesus's atonement is false, fine. I of course disagree. But what on earth did God mean in that Psalm then? Are you saying that because everywhere else where the Bible says "gods" it means false gods, that God was calling His people false gods in the Psalm under consideration? That would mean God meant: "I have said, Ye are false gods because I'm using a lower-case "g" and the plural of God, and in addition you're children of the most High." I'm not sure I'm getting what you're proving here.

That might be true if they were not only one God, but also only one person, but they are not only one person, they are three persons.

Then we agree (yet I know we don't). By that I mean I believe "God" can be a term used to describe God the Father, God the Son, God the Testator (three separate Gods united for one purpose: our salvation). So to say Jesus is God, is accurate in that he is a God. I do not believe Jesus was teaching the Jews (in John 10) that he was in any way what is described in the Nicene creed, or that he is only a third of a whole God...nor do I think the Jews took it that way. I believe Jesus taught and the Jews understood that as the Son of God (son of a God) Jesus was also a God in his own right, under the authority of the Father.

To say that the Son is the Father is Sabellianism, and Sabellianism is not orthodox Christianity and actually contradicted at Nicea.

Yet trinitarians refuse to say there are three Gods united as one. No, since there can only be one God, that must mean there must be three persons that make up one God, but each person cannot be a separate God. That's where the disagreement is. . My point is that there are three separate Gods, Presided over by God the Father, mediated by God the Son, testified of by God the Spirit.

Everyone knew exactly what the parables meant. They all knew what a "virgin" was, what a "wedding" was, what "wheat and tares" were, what a "talent" was, what a "sower" was, etc. Nobody had any question about what the parables meant. The question was, what did they teach?

Your quote above is exactly what I said...Jesus had to explain his parables (read: what they taught) to his disciples in many instances. If you took that to mean I thought Jesus took them aside and whispered, "Okay, a bride is a woman getting married; wheat is a plant used for food, etc..." than I must be more dumber than I thunk, and you must think I'm an idiot. :) But that's not what I meant, your objection is semantic. I never said Jesus had to explain the words in his parables, but what they taught when taken as a whole.

John 10:30 is not a parable.

I don't recall saying is was. My point was that Jesus had to explain what his parables taught to his closest disciples sometimes...so why would it be surprising for Jews to misunderstand not just parables but statements of Jesus? As here, or, in what way Jesus was "one" with the Father. Remember, the Jews' twisted Jesus' claim to raise "this temple" (his body) in three days, saying he taught he would re-build the Temple of Herod in three days. Not exactly on the mark, were they?

There are just the words themselves and what they meant.

And yet here we are arguing about what Jesus meant by the word "one." Obviously we both know it literally means a single unit or numeric value....but how something can be one is entirely different. People say that man and woman can become "one" through intercourse, but they're still ontologically separate beings. :) But why go down that road again?

The fact that the Jews He addressed were immersed in the language and culture of Jesus is precisely why they were in a better position than us to understand the connotative meanings of His words, AK.

And I disagree. LDS rely on modern revelation in addition to ancient translation for clarification.

Even people who just received the word of God were called "gods."

If those who merely received the word of God were called "gods," all the more it is right to call He who was sanctified by the Father and sent into the world by the Father the "Son of God."

They didn't misunderstand. They knew perfectly well what He meant. He wasn't minimizing His nature and status, He was proclaiming it by arguing in a very familiar form.

Okay, I'm beginning to wonder if we're posting on the same board...your quote above is EXACTLY what I said (forgive my poor netiquette as per the all-caps word). My point was that even though the Jews understood the reasoning based on that particular Psalm, they disagreed that God could have a Son in the flesh (because the son of a God would inherit God-like powers and be "equal" to God in nature and the Jews would have none of that). I'm not basing this, by the way, on just John 10. If you thought I was limiting my arguments to that one chapter of scripture you're wrong.

In my opinion, all of Jesus's interactions with the Jews as recorded in the New Testament show that the Jews could not accept the idea of their omnipotent God having a mortal Son who claimed powers only their God had. For example, the famous: "This man speaks blasphemy; who alone but God can forgive sins," etc...

The question is not whether they believed Him, the question is whether they knew what He meant. They certainly did.

And I certainly disagree. You think they understood Jesus to mean he was one part of a single God, not a God in his own right. I think Jesus taught he was a separate God from God the Father, but one in will and purpose. Quoting the same, "...because you make yourself God" objection from the Jews doesn't prove the Jews understood what you think they understood. Sorry. We'll just have to disagree.

They understood Jesus to be saying He was God. That was what riled them up. We know that's what they understood because John 10 explicitly says so. "... You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." John 10:33

Again, it's how we interpret that simple statement, "...you make yourself God." I don't think they meant, "one third of a single God," but a separate God in his own right, united with the Father who is also a God.

When did He claim to be God?

When He said, "I and the Father are one."

Again, that's not speculation, it's what the text says.

Dr. T, you seem to be stuck on that one phrase. Jesus taught he was God in many ways beyond simple, "I am one with my Father," declarations. By claiming powers of a God, that would make him a God. By claiming to be equal with a God, that would make him a God. Not many rabbis claimed power to grant eternal life.

Good thinking but what does the text actually say? The text tells us what their reaction was - they said Jesus was cuckoo.

Yes, Dr. T, but I wasn't limiting my argument to John 10. In many other places in the New Testament, the Jews objected to Jesus's claims of having God's power (refer to the, "This man speaketh blasphemy; who alone but God can forgive sins" account in the New Testament).

Another nit picky thing-They didn't say "crucify Him" at all. They tried to stone Him.

DT, DT, DT...are you being difficult on purpose? I didn't say the Jews cried "Crucify him!" in John 10. Surely you knew I was referring to the end of Christ's mortal ministry?

...it appears that you are trying to put the language of Nicea into the ministry of Jesus.

That's funny, because it seemed to me that you and Dan were putting the concepts of Nicea into the ministry of Jesus.

Strike 3...They did not accuse Him of claiming to have the same power as God. They said, "You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." That's not an interpretation, that's what the text says.

Again DT, I wasn't limiting myself to John 10. Plenty of places in the New Testament we find Jews objecting to one claim or another of Jesus where he says he has the same power as God. I was speaking abstractly, taking all accounts as one, synthesizing and distilling the Jews' anger at Christ into a summary to clarify my point about John 10.

I'm not concerned about the "justification" of their condemnation. What matters is what caused their condemnation - Jesus saying, "I and the Father are one." The text tells us that it was when Jesus said that that they picked up stones to stone Him. Not before.

Um, DT...what's the deal today bro? You're arguing semantics like there's no tomorrow! When I said, "That would justify their condemnation," I meant that in their minds it justified or was the cause of their condemnation. By reading between my lines you're looking beyond my mark. This entire post is almost all about correcting semantic errors.

The text tells us what enraged them, AK. Not Jesus claiming to have power, but "You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." We don't have to guess, speculate or wonder, the text tells us.

DT, your approach to this seems to me to be overly simple. To sum up your argument: "The only thing that upset the Jews here was the last thing Jesus said before they picked up stones." I disagree. I think that everything Jesus was teaching in John 10 from verse one up until the attempted stoning, was the cause of the attempted stoning. If you think the Jews were okay with everything Jesus said up until the "I and my Father are one," thing, you're entitled to your own opinion. Judging from other New Testament accounts, it's my opinion that the Jews disliked anything Jesus taught that placed him above the authority of the scribes, Pharisees, rabbis and Sanhedrin.

So in John 10, even though there isn't an attempted stoning after each teaching I cited as perceived blasphemy, that doesn't mean the Jews weren't outraged by them. Ever heard of how things or emotions can "snowball" or build up over time? Yeah, that's all I'm saying.

(Nitpick #1000) Neither the Pharisees nor the Sadducees nor any other Jew crucified anybody. That was a Roman punishment, not a Jewish punishment.

DT...you must be being difficult on purpose. That, or someone else logged onto your account and posted for you. I never said Jews crucified anyone...I know it was a Roman punishment...I went to Sunday School...the reason I made that Pharisee/Sadducee comment was because the Jews were the ones who cried, "Crucify him!" Lighten up bro!

Somewhere in your post you said the Jews didn't object to Jesus's claims of Sonship. Maybe you only meant they didn't in John 10. But my friend, the key objection to Jesus was his claim that God was his Father. Take this little passage, for example:

"But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God."

"Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven."

"Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy."

"What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death." (Matthew 26:63-66)

Hmmm, sounds to me like they didn't like his claims of divine Sonship and authority. But maybe I'm connoting wen I should be denoting (how embarassing).

One of Dan's points was that Jesus made it clear that He was claiming equality with God.

Why do I get the feeling you either printed my post and gave it to Dan or had him read my post and give rebuttals?

Tell me what you think, not what Dan thinks. If Dan wants to discuss this with me, have him open an account, pick a username and start posting.

An observation about your approach here that is interesting to me, you say that you are not satisfied with reading Nicea back into Jesus' ministry, but its ok to read Mormon theology back into it.

I'd have no problem reading Nicene creedology in Jesus's ministry if it were true. That's why. I don't think it's true, and I think "mormon theology" i.e. true doctrine, happens to already be in Jesus's ministry. I hope that satisfies you...and Dan. :)

Are you saying that you don't think that Jesus nor the Jews meant what they said?

I'm saying I don't think your understanding of what they said is accurate in this case. Simple as that. Pass that on to Dan as I'm sure he was wondering too. :)

Yes, to think that they were quoting from Nicea about 300 years before the council took place would be a bit of a stretch. But as I have been trying to show, the concept of His claim to be God is clear.

Yes, Jesus claimed to be God...but a separate God from the Father, making more than one God numerically but one God symbollicaly. Ahhhhh! Blasphemy! I didn't say anyone in John 10 was quoting from Nicea, just that your interpretation of John 10 as I understand it is Nicene.

From your responses I would infer that Jesus was a poor teacher.

That's alright, it wouldn't be the first time you misunderstood my last post. Don't worry about it, I forgive you.

To clarify my point: I believe that Jesus is God, a God, separate from God the Father, making more than one God numerically, but one God in purpose (along with the Spirit). And I draw that conclusion in part from the New Testament. We disagree. It's okay. But make sure you understand what I'm saying before you disagree with it. About 80% of your last post was spinning your tires in muddy misunderstanding of my last post. Let's avoid that in the future, shall we? Great. :)

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Are you saying that there is an aspect of our existence which is co-eternal with the Father, and was not made by him???

Hadn't you ever heard that? Yes, every being has at its core what the D&C calls "intelligence" that was not made or created by anyone or anything.

Ultimately, this all comes back to the veracity of Joseph Smith's revelations and the validity of his restored gospel claims. Either he was righteous, and far more radically enlightened than Martin Luther dared be, or he was something else.

Which is why everyone who's interested needs to read and pray about the Book of Mormon to know if Joseph Smith was a true prophet. By small and simple things, great things are brought to pass...

[prisonchaplain]

prisonchaplain,

I do believe you may have received assurances from God regarding the truth on many issues, but there are still some truths you do not know and the only way you can know those truths is by receiving assurances from God on those issues.

I'm thinking I share this state of being with roughly six billion people, all of us, coincidentally, being located on the third planet from the sun. B)

And btw, I am only saying that you "may have received" assurances from God because it is possible that you believe the things you believe simply because you accept assurances from other people who say they have received assurances from God, and what they say combined with what you think simply "makes sense" and sounds "reasonable" to you.

It is possible for you to be definitive on certain matters in which I (or you) claim to have assurances from God. One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is called "the discerning of spirits." Sometimes the Spirit reveals that what another is saying definitely is or is not "of God."

Case in point, I was in Korea for the '88 Olympics. Two fellows came up to me at Dunkin Donuts, and asked to speak with me. They proceeded to show me the gospel (People on one side, God on another, a chasm between us--the chasm = sin, but the cross, representing Christ's atonement, bridges the chasm). I responded, "I believe all this. I'm a born again Christian."

One responds, "THEN WHAT ARE YOU DOING FOR GOD!!!"

Instead of feeling challenged or motivated, I sensed a spirit of devourment. Something was wrong with these guys, and I excused myself. Later I found out they had started a little cult, were primarily working the American military community, and that their "ministry" had resulted in family being split up. They required members to move into their home, and to turn their paychecks over to the work. Scary scary stuff. But, like I said, I didn't know that when they approached me. I only "knew" that the Spirit was warning me to get away from them.

So, yes, Ray...by all means--rely on the Holy Spirit, and seek discernment when questions arise, or claims to prophetic or special messages are proffered.

Or in other words, if you really believe you can know the truth by simply accepting the Bible, without receiving personal assurances from God to assure you that He inspired those words and how those words should be interpreted, then you still need to receive assurances from God to help you know the Bible was truly inspired by God and how you should truly interpret those words.

I'm quite frankly more eager to seek assurance when I hear a "Word from God," that seems questionable or uncertain. My "assurance" on the Bible does come from the Holy Spirit, from my spiritual experiences in wife, and yes, also through (not only or primarily) sound teaching offered by gifted instructors, anointed by the Holy Spirit.

Now, to share a thought on an issue related to the topic of this thread, I think it may help you to know that we [LDS] do believe in only one God in the sense you seem to accept that idea, it’s just that we believe we can also say “Gods" because the true God is more than one person. Or in other words, there is only one God in the sense that there is only one supreme being in all of existence, and we use the word “God” to refer to that being, but that being exists as more than one person... just as all who are "man" can be referred to as "men".

So, Ray, are you telling me that you believe the godhead is three gods in one God? The key differences between our understandings of God are the how distinct vs. how united they are, and this whole issue of immortality (be it of intelligence or personhood). Yes, we can find ways to string words together in ways that we would both find satisfying and somewhat unifying. But, there are signficant differences here that, while somewhat nuanced, are nevertheless deeply important.

Oh, and one more thing. While learning is fun, and sharing our knowledge is fun, it's not really the point of this "game", because what will really matter is not how much we know, but what we did with the knowledge we had.

Let me reward it more to my liking: Oh, and one more thing. While learning is INTERESTING, and sharing our KNOWLEDGE is STIMULATING, it's not really the point of this LEARNING PROCESS, because what will really matter is not how much we know, but what we did with the knowledge we had. I would, however, argue that there is no battle between knowing and doing. God would have us do more of both.

[Guest MrsS]

Thank you Ray and Outshined...Ray, I will let you know if and when I convert to the LDS faith! Thanks for your suggestions!

Totally

Pushka in your signature it states: "Religion: None but raised R.C. and practised LDS for 5 years"

So how did you practise being LDS? Were you not baptised? Or were you just investigating the church?

[pushka]

Hi Mrs.S.

At the time I was 14 and was investigating the church. However I did this until I was 18, with the intention of getting baptised when I no longer needed my parents' permission.

During the time that I was attending the church I took part in 1 year's Seminary study, attended all of the youth groups that were appropriate to my age group, and attended also the Sunday meetings (Sacrament) that were appropriate. I was called to be secretary of the Young Women's group...or the equivalent group for teenagers when I was 16.

I left the church a few months after my 18th Birthday, before I could re-take the Missionary lessons, due to personal circumstances.

[Dr T]

Hello AK/all,

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. My last post is/was out of character for me. I wish I could say that my screen name was hijacked, but it wasn’t. It might be hard for you to believe but my last post was designed with a purpose. Looking back on that decision, I see that it was foolish and that I ought to have approached it with more honor and “just discussed it” with you instead. I’m not excusing it and I wanted to let you know that perhaps, in some part, it is related to the scars I have on my brain. I was dx’ed with Multiple Sclerosis and the MRI shows many lesions on my spine and brain. Like I said, I’m not excusing my actions but I do understand that my decision making skills are not always up to what they were. My intention in writing that last post was geared at “feeling you out.” I wanted to see how you would respond to direct opposition/challenge that was supported by both text and context of the Biblical account. As you read, I offered a quick prayer asking for this conversation to continue. But then I wrote some very challenging and rude words to see if you would dismiss me and my thoughts or if you would interact with the argument, not the ad homs. I then proceeded to attack you (stupidly I might add) in a greatly exaggerated way. I understand that you are an intelligent person, AK. I knew that you did not really mean things that I attacked (“crucify” for example), and I was trying to needle you to see if our conversation could withstand some direct opposition and razzing. You rightly might be asking, “Why would you do that Dr. T?” My answer is, while it has been very fun and pleasant, I see (and my wife is starting to complain) that I have been spending more time than I should on this site and I wanted to see if my time here would be worth the time I put in. I’m enjoying learning from you all and I’m starting to see a lot of differences in the LDS church and the historic Christian church (I’m sure you would agree). Because of seeing these discrepancies, I knew that I would be drawn to address them in conversation with you. Since, I’m sure, we will take different views on those other issues, I was fearful of spending more time with you and then in the end you saying, “Dr. T is just an anti-Mormon” and our conversations would end. I hope you know by now, I am not an anti-Mormon (but I do sometimes make poor decisions). So, you see, I wanted to lay out a harsh post now to see if you were willing to continue interacting with me or not. Like I said, that was a dumb approach to take. I could have just talked to you about it like I’m doing now to see if you were still willing to participate in that discussion. For that, ApostleKnight, I apologize to you. If you decide to forgive me and are willing to interact with the major questions that I'm starting to have, I would really enjoy your company on this journey.

Dr. T

P.S. Ray, I appreciate how you've been posting. Thank you.

edited to fix typo

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Dr. T, your last post cleared up alot of things. I'm glad I understand why your remarks were so out of character...not that you can't point blank disagree, but our discussions have traditionally been more hacking at the roots, not the leaves, of the issues.

If you decide to forgive me and are willing to interact with the major questions that I'm starting to have, I would really enjoy your company on this journey.

Nothing to forgive Dr. T. I don't think you're anti-mormon. I'm up for discussing whatever comes along, recognizing in advance that there might be irreconcilable differences of opinion. Your posts are fair and open-minded as far as I can see, which is one reason I'm willing to explore issues/doctrines with you. FYI: I'm going to be in Hawaii for a brother's wedding until around May 8th. Didn't want you thinking I was sulking if I don't reply for a few days. Oh, I have an aunt with MS so I'm sorry about that.

[Dr T]

Thanks AK,

Have a great time in Hawaii! Maybe we can talk about your aunt who has MS sometime.

Thanks,

Dr. T

[Lindy]

Hey Dr T

Just read your last couple of posts.... and wanted to let you know that there are a lot of people in this world... myself included... that just don't dump out on someone because they have a bad day :) Sheeeesh, we all have bad days.... I'm sorry about the MS... I'm sure it is a strain on you... I just can't imagine, one of those things I've never had to deal with.

I apologize for not keeping up on some threads... I know you had some questions for me on a thread somewhere...but I have lost track of who, what, when and how....or is that why?

Anything I can help you with? I had some time this morning...couldn't sleep... so I started to browse the posts and threads a little.

Think I'll go take a little nap now....lol

[Dr T]

Hello Lindy,

I'm not sure if I interpreted your last post correctly but just to clarify, I did not "dump on someone because I had a bad day." Maybe you didn't understnd what I was trying to do in my offensive post. I don't remember what my questions were for you. When I have more time, maybe I'll find them and ask them again. Yes MS is a strain (on multiple levels) but I'm still alive and will not die from it... I most likely will just feel like this every now and then. Mostly I have numbness, I went blind in my right eye (temporarily), I can't walk (or stand up) so great sometimes, I'm easily fatigued, sometimes it gets so bad I can't button my own shirt, etc. but I'll still use what mental abilities while they last.

Thanks,

Dr. T

[pushka]

Hi Dr. T, I'm sorry to hear about your MS too, I have 2 friends with the condition, and understand a little about how debilitating it can be from time to time...I hope that you recover from this particular relapse shortly.

As for Lindy's comment about 'dumping out on somebody', I think she was referring to you believing that AK might be upset at your post, and that he might have 'dumped out' on you, rather than her believing that you were 'dumping out' on anybody on the site...hope I'm correct!!

Think she was asking you to have faith in the other posters!! :)

[shanstress70]

Hi Dr T,

Just want you to know that you're in my thoughts and prayers. Sounds like you are dealing well with the MS and have a great attitude about it. Take care of yourself!

Just out of curiosity, are you married? Do you have children? Not sure if I've ever heard you talk about it.

[Dr T]

Thanks for your thoughts Pushka. I thought that I might have misread her intention. Just wanted to clarify. :)

Thanks for the thoughts and prayers Shan. I really appreciate that. Prayer is the best medicine! To answer your question, Yes. I've been blessed. I am married and we have 4 beautiful, amazing, super brilliant, loving, compassionate, trustworth, respectful, obediant, loyal, industrious, pure, grateful, cheerful, and athletic children. If you really want to know what I think of them, I'd be here allll day.

We have 3 boys and a girl.

Dr. T