Son of God?


Justice
 Share

Recommended Posts

Yes, PC, it is my belief that my questions are based on.

I guess I'm remarakably surprised that Christians can believe so differently about even the most basic of concepts, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

If we don't honor the definitions of words then there's no hope to teach, or at least to understand each other. When we have our own definitions for words that we understand so simply otherwise, it brings to light the words Joseph Smith spoke about the Bible:

11 While I was laboring under the extreme difficulties caused by the contests of these parties of religionists, I was one day reading the Epistle of James, first chapter and fifth verse, which reads: If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

12 Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed wisdom from God, I did; for how to act I did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, I would never know; for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.

And not just passages, but the very words the themselves.

I was hoping for understanding. I don't have it. I'm not the kind of person that can sidestep logic with blind belief, whether or not I believe the Bible "says" one thing or the other. At the foundation of my belief is that God knows everything, and He knows us. Also, I believe the events in scripture teach more than the actual words.

For example: Jesus was born of a mortal mother. That speaks volumes of who He is and His relationship to us. We should use that to help us understand the words, not ignore it and think that a man can be born as an ant (bad example, but I can't think of another way to make my point).

So, instead of ignoring what happened in scripture and seeking simply to understand the words, God used events to teach us far more than mere words can.

I don't have a problem with mysteries. There are things that we don't or even can't understand as mortals. But, when something (mystery or not) goes against logic and what happened in scripture (not just word interpretation), I have a very difficult time with it. Jesus was born of a mortal mother, and all Christians believe that much. In the Bible I "read" Jesus was born of a mortal mother, and I "read" God is His Father. That speaks volumes of who He is. The events should center your interpretation of the words, not vice verse.

You (PC, Maureen, and Shelly) have no idea how much I apprecaite your willingness to answer my questions and try to help me understand what you believe. I do appreciate it. And, you have no idea for how long I've wanted to get some morsel or tidbit that helps me understand (not just comprehend the words) the Trinity as believers see it. As of now I am unable to even take a first step in trying to see what you see. I see the words as you do, and I can explain them better, but as far as my purpose for this thread, that I might be able to understand something; anything, about your belief in God, it did not have the impact on me I had hoped. Comprehending the words is one thing, I even struggle with that, but understanding them, even in the least degree, it seems I can't.

Maureen, what I'm trying to express is bit different than what you express about our beliefs. You say you can never believe that God was once a man, even though it offers a solution to the dilemma about how Jesus can be God's Son. The words are understandable (son means offspring) but you choose to believe something else, something else where the words have to have different meanings and the belief can't be understood. In my case, I'm asked to understand a very basic word different than I ever have (son), while the belief that drives it can't be understood or explained.

If I had a nibble, or a small step... if I could either understand how you believe "son" or if I can understand anything about 3=1, I'd probably come up with a bunch more questions. I've found one small step of understanding usually brings more questions. I know when I first heard that God was once a man it brought up a lot of questions.

And maybe to help you understand a bit more about my belief (I know you didn't ask and may not care), it's technically not that God was once a man and has changed from a man as we know it to the God that you believe in. That step is impossible. It's that "man" is just our species term for the mortal part of His existence. He has always been the same Being. For a poor example I use a caterpillar and a butterfly. It is the same "individual," just at a different stage of existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 523
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

For example: Jesus was born of a mortal mother. That speaks volumes of who He is and His relationship to us. We should use that to help us understand the words, not ignore it and think that a man can be born as an ant (bad example, but I can't think of another way to make my point).

I'm slightly confused as to your "man can be born as an ant" analogy... but I think this paragraph is agreed by all. Catholic and Protestants alike believe that Christ being born of a mortal woman *does* speak volumes about Him and His relationship to us. When we look at the Bible in its entirety, when we interpret events based on the entirety of Salvation History, we view Christ's birth as nothing short of a miracle. Christ was born of a mortal woman, but Christ was God, not mortal; therefore His conception and birth are sen as a miracle. And having God enter into the New Ark (Mary), a mortal human woman, and become fully divine and fully human... well it speaks volumes about who God is: His love, mecy, compassion, willingness to do anything for His people, as well as His relationship to us. For us, the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus is made all the more wonderful when we see that Jesus is God, and that he deigned to take on humanity, that He deigned to come down and dwell among us, His own creations, and live with us, suffer from us, and die for us and for the salvation of our souls. His birth, life, death, and rising are wonderful, miraculous, amazing, awe-inspiring events, and we worship Christ with all the more joy, gratitude, and enthusiasm when we view those events in this light.

I don't have a problem with mysteries. There are things that we don't or even can't understand as mortals. But, when something (mystery or not) goes against logic and what happened in scripture (not just word interpretation), I have a very difficult time with it. Jesus was born of a mortal mother, and all Christians believe that much. In the Bible I "read" Jesus was born of a mortal mother, and I "read" God is His Father. That speaks volumes of who He is. The events should center your interpretation of the words, not vice verse.)

I guess my paragraph above could be read in response to this as well. We read the same words, we understand the same events, we just view them from a different perspective I guess. And God does not have to fit into our human logic; otherwise He wouldn't be God (He would finite, able to be fully understood, not at all lofty enough, in my opinion, to be a God worthy of my worship).

You (PC, Maureen, and Shelly) have no idea how much I apprecaite your willingness to answer my questions and try to help me understand what you believe. I do appreciate it. And, you have no idea for how long I've wanted to get some morsel or tidbit that helps me understand (not just comprehend the words) the Trinity as believers see it. As of now I am unable to even take a first step in trying to see what you see. I see the words as you do, and I can explain them better, but as far as my purpose for this thread, that I might be able to understand something; anything, about your belief in God, it did not have the impact on me I had hoped. Comprehending the words is one thing, I even struggle with that, but understanding them, even in the least degree, it seems I can't.).

I'm sure there are numerous books, written by experts in many different denominations and written by experts in Catholicism, that would be able to give a lengthier, more thorough, and more researched answer to the doctrine of the Trinity than anyone could give through sporadic writings back and forth over a website forum. It seems like this is a doctrine you really want to learn more about -- if not to agree with it, than to simply understand it better -- and so I would highly recommend you puruse Amazon for some books on the matter, if you have some free time.

If you'd like, I'd suggest the book "The Trinity:An Introduction to Catholic Doctrine on the Triune God" by Gilles Emery. I have to confess to never having read it myself, but from the description of the book and the few pages you can scan on Amazon, the fact that it was written by an ordained priest, and that it was published by a Catholic publishing company, it looks like it would be a sound explanation of the Trinity from a Catholic perspective. (Although I should warn that it does not have a seal of Impramatur or a Nihil Obstat, which are endorsements by bishops to show that they have read the book and found nothing contrary to the Faith in them. So it has not been offically given the stamp of approval from a Catholic bishop. Still--from what I can see, it looks like a good start.)

Once again, that's just a suggestion if you desire further study from one more prepared to answer theological questions.

Maureen, what I'm trying to express is bit different than what you express about our beliefs. You say you can never believe that God was once a man, even though it offers a solution to the dilemma about how Jesus can be God's Son. The words are understandable (son means offspring) but you choose to believe something else, something else where the words have to have different meanings and the belief can't be understood. In my case, I'm asked to understand a very basic word different than I ever have (son), while the belief that drives it can't be understood or explained.

Most Christians do not feel there is a dilemma that needs to be solved. Remember the Catholic Church has had these doctrines for two millenia, and the Protestant churches for centuries. Our side of the story is that we've had our doctrines for so long, and now there's a new kid on the block saying we've had it all wrong. To us it's the LDS who are creating new meanings for long-held words and doctrines.

We're on different sides of the story, with different backgrounds, coming to conclusions with different histories and different instilled ideas. It's kind of like culture shock.

And maybe to help you understand a bit more about my belief (I know you didn't ask and may not care), it's technically not that God was once a man and has changed from a man as we know it to the God that you believe in. That step is impossible. It's that "man" is just our species term for the mortal part of His existence. He has always been the same Being. For a poor example I use a caterpillar and a butterfly. It is the same "individual," just at a different stage of existence.

This is a fundamental difference between LDS and non-LDS. And is another example of culture shock: we already have centuries of doctrine and instilled belief telling us that God has always been God as He is now; He has not progressed; He was never anything different than or less than He is now. And we humans are not of the same species as God, and are not able to become god through progression. To non-LDS this is something completely foreign and totally new... most would say a tradition of man. We are coming at the idea of God from two completely different perspectives.

I think the important thing, though, is for everyone to be able to share their perspectives with everyone else. So that, in a non-intrusive or condescending way, we can all learn about the similarities and differences among us, and, in the end, continue to treat each other like the creations of God that we all think we all are. As to the Trinity, you may never understand it in the way that we do; just as we may never understand LDS doctrines in the way you do. But maybe you can understand where we're coming from in our belief, what our perspective is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...The only one passage that describes some of the, but not not the entire, concept of the Trinity is a forgery written by a dishonest monk or scribe who obviously knew it wasn't in the Bible and so he fabricated it....

Thus, that Cyprian interpreted 1 John 5:7-8 to refer to the Trinity is likely; but that he saw the Trinitarian formula in the text is rather unlikely. Further, one of the great historical problems of regarding the Comma as authentic is how it escaped all Greek witnesses for a millennium and a half. That it at first shows up in Latin, starting with Priscillian in c. 380 (as even the hard evidence provided by Maynard shows), explains why it is not found in the early or even the majority of Greek witnesses. All the historical data point in one of two directions: (1) This reading was a gloss added by Latin patristic writers whose interpretive zeal caused them to insert these words into Holy Writ; or (2) this interpretation was a gloss, written in the margins of some Latin MSS, probably sometime between 250 and 350, that got incorporated into the text by a scribe who was not sure whether it was a comment on scripture or scripture itself (a phenomenon that was not uncommon with scribes).

The Comma Johanneum and Cyprian | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site

If the Comma Johanneum is so despicable why did Joseph Smith leave it in his inspired version of the Bible?

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Comma Johanneum is so despicable why did Joseph Smith leave it in his inspired version of the Bible?

M.

You're asking me to explain Joseph Smith's motivations and intentions?

Seriously? Do you think I'm a prophet? You don't even think JS was so what's up with that?

...Trying to divert attention instead of addressing the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're asking me to explain Joseph Smith's motivations and intentions?

Seriously? Do you think I'm a prophet? You don't even think JS was so what's up with that?

...Trying to divert attention instead of addressing the issue.

You're willing to accuse monks or scribes from centuries ago of corrupt motivations but you're not willing to wonder what JS's intentions were when writing his inspired version. Why?

M.

Edited by Maureen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're willing to accuse monks or scribes from centuries ago of corrupt motivations but you're not willing to wonder what JS's intentions were when writing his inspired version. Why?

M.

Still avoiding the topic like Shelly I see, Obviously if your were aware of any NT passage that expresses the Trinity, you would have referenced it by now.

That scribes corruptly the original text deliberated is undisputed. In this particular case it is plausible, I suppose, that the corruption was inadvertent. There may have been some scribe who was so unfamiliar with the Bible that he didn't know the different between the New Testament itself and a personal note in the margin from someone unknown.

How this passage found it's way into the English is a different story. Erasmus knew well that it was original to the text but included the corruption anyway in his 1522 edition text for other reasons.

So anyway... why do you think that even Jesus didn't understand his own nature? Or did He just think it unimportant?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, now wait a second....Let me get this straight....I might just be recovering from the whiplash but... other churches...that say they are Christian....don't believe that Jesus is the Son, as in the only begotten Son of God? Is that what this thread is about?

I am still trying to wrap my brain around this. They believe that Jesus is just His Son figuratively because they have a relationship...but He is not the actual SON of God?

He never said, "the other part of me in heaven" He said His Father in Heaven...and they look alike, if you've seen Him, you've seen His Father. He prayed to His Father. Our Heavenly Father claimed Him as His SON. I don't know how much more clear it can be. He had a mortal mother, where he inherited death, and an immortal father where he inherited the ability to be resurrected. How else could that happen, a God dies and is resurrected?

And the people that go to these Christian churches know that the doctrine of their church says that Jesus is not the Son of God? Am I understanding this right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the key issue here is that of what it means for the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be "one", and whether this is monotheistic. In my opinion, and from discussing this issue many, many times, from both the Catholic and Latter-day Saint perspectives, over the years, I think that the traditional Trinity and LDS Godhead doctrines are closer to each other than many on either side may realize.

The problem is that we are using words in different ways. Latter-day Saints follow everyday English in using "being" and "person" interchangeably, therefore we can say that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct/separate beings/persons. In contrast, traditional Christians do not, instead using "being" to refer to one thing, and "person" to refer to something else. Therefore, they would say that the Three are distinct persons, but not distinct beings. This is where much of the confusion comes, from both sides. In this very thread, I see LDS claiming/implying that Trinitarians believe that the Three are the same Person, when Trinitarians don't believe that, instead claiming that they are the same Being, which is something different, to them. I also see a Trinitarian using her definitions of "Being" and "Person" to critique the LDS position, which doesn't work either, since we don't share the same understanding of those words. For example, yes LDS claim that the Three are three beings, however using this to claim that we therefore don't believe in one God because Trinitarians believe that they are only one Being doesn't work, since we are coming from two different perspectives on what those words mean.

What we can both agree on is that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct Persons, who are not each other. The question is how are They one? Latter-day Saints believe that they are one in purpose, united in Love, making them "one God". Yes, in one sense, we claim that they are three gods, yet in another, we can also say that they are "one God", united and bonded together in purpose and love. Latter-day Saints agree with the early Christian theologian Origen when he states-"We are not afraid to speak, in one sense of two Gods, in another sense of one God."-Dialog with Heracleides Trinitarians would agree that the Three are united in love and purpose, however they also say that they are united in essence/nature/being, in that they are of the same divine nature, and are the only ones that are of that nature. In all of my reading, even during my time as a Catholic, I cannot see how this results in a doctrine that is any more or less monotheistic than the LDS view. Having three distinct divine Persons, who are not each other, seems to preclude any notion of monotheism. Quotes from the Catholic Encyclopedia in this thread have not cleared that up, and in most cases (not necessarily in this thread), the response is usually a variant of "it's monotheistic because we say so", or "since you're not Trinitarian you can't understand because you have preconceived notions". Granted, I have no problem with this, but I do have an issue when this is used as a point of criticism of the restored doctrine of the Godhead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, PC, it is my belief that my questions are based on.

I guess I'm remarakably surprised that Christians can believe so differently about even the most basic of concepts, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

If we don't honor the definitions of words then there's no hope to teach, or at least to understand each other.

It strikes my as unnecessary to press God on the details of his nature, by insisting to the nth degree that his revelation to us fit our precises experiences. Jesus is the Son of God. You must understand this. So, how far will you ask?

1. Was Jesus birthed?

2. Did he have a mother? If not, how could he be a son?

3. Did she carry for for nine months?

4. Did conception come about in the same manner we conceive our children? If not, can Jesus really be called a son?

5. When exactly did Jesus actually become a son?

6. Did his mother experience pain in birthing Jesus?

I mean really, at least to me, these questions are unnecessary. Some of them strike me as close to disrespectful. God is not human. He reveals Jesus as his Son, and such he is. This relationship does not require any of the above, and if God has not revealed the details, they are not for us to know. Oh, I suppose we can ask...but I am certainly not going to enter a crisis of faith if I fail to get the "blood and gut" details.

You contend that traditionalists are playing with words, if we fail to lay out precisely how Jesus can be called a son if he was not born, did not have a mother in heaven, etc. You seem to say that if the traditional belief that Jesus is the eternal Son of God, co-equal with the Father, then his sonship is an impossible wordplay. I'm not even sure how to respond.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still avoiding the topic like Shelly I see, Obviously if your were aware of any NT passage that expresses the Trinity, you would have referenced it by now.

Snow you are either illiterate or blind, see Post #278. 1John 5:7-8 are the verses that show the trinitarian formula, best known as Comma Johanneum, which you believe corrupt scribes composed.

That scribes corruptly the original text deliberated is undisputed. In this particular case it is plausible, I suppose, that the corruption was inadvertent. There may have been some scribe who was so unfamiliar with the Bible that he didn't know the different between the New Testament itself and a personal note in the margin from someone unknown.

How this passage found it's way into the English is a different story. Erasmus knew well that it was original to the text but included the corruption anyway in his 1522 edition text for other reasons.

And Joseph Smith kept it in his inspired version of the Bible.

So anyway... why do you think that even Jesus didn't understand his own nature? Or did He just think it unimportant?

He did know his own nature, he knew he was human and he knew he was God (divine).

Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth,159 before Abraham came into existence,160 I am!”161 (John 8:58)

161sn 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).

M.

Edited by Maureen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maureen,

The Comma Johanneum, whether correct or not, cannot be used as evidence for the Trinity in the Bible. It is not found in ANY early manuscripts until the 7th century AD! Some scholars think it may go back to the 3-4 century AD, but there is no manuscript of that time frame containing it, so that is only an assumption.

Meanwhile the hundreds of verses that teach an anthropomorphic God date to well before the age of Christianity, and is clearly found in the writings of Moses and many other prophets.

So, when Snow asks for evidence, he is wanting actual ancient evidence for it, and not a Middle Ages insertion into the text.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the people that go to these Christian churches know that the doctrine of their church says that Jesus is not the Son of God? Am I understanding this right?

No you are not understanding it right. They believe he is the Son of God, that he is the only Begotten, but they don't believe it in the same sense as LDS do. You see a similar sense of misunderstanding about LDS and the Bible being the Word of God. A lot of Christians take that to mean that plain and precious truths could not have been lost from it. They then turn around accuse us of not really believing the Bible is the Word of God because our sense of what that means is different than theirs. You have a similar situation here.

Other Christian Churches do not anymore believe that Jesus is not the Son of God any more than we do not believe the Bible is the Word of God. There may be a better analogy to use out there, but it's what is coming to mind. Don't confuse, "Don't believe it the same way I do." with "Don't believe it."

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that is not part of this thread but, are there verses in the Book of Mormon that show that the Nephites saw God the Father as a personage with flesh and bones, like 21st century Mormons believe?

M.

1 Nephi 1 has Lehi in vision see God on his throne, and the Son of God descending down to earth and giving him a book to read. This is very anthropomorphic of both Father and Son. Alma 36 also has Alma seeing God on his throne.

A nebulous spirit being does not sit on a throne or hand someone a book.

There are other examples of this in the Book of Mormon, including 3 Nephi and Ether.

BTW, did you know that many major universities now give out Master and Doctorate degrees for theses on God being anthropomorphic, divine council of gods, etc.? For example, I have a friend at St Anthony's in the UK working on his program, with a focus on divine council and the anthropomorphic God.

So, obviously it isn't just 21st century Mormons that are taking a good, long look at these ancient concepts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maureen,

The Comma Johanneum, whether correct or not, cannot be used as evidence for the Trinity in the Bible. It is not found in ANY early manuscripts until the 7th century AD! Some scholars think it may go back to the 3-4 century AD, but there is no manuscript of that time frame containing it, so that is only an assumption.

Meanwhile the hundreds of verses that teach an anthropomorphic God date to well before the age of Christianity, and is clearly found in the writings of Moses and many other prophets.

So, when Snow asks for evidence, he is wanting actual ancient evidence for it, and not a Middle Ages insertion into the text.

I know that, and I'm not saying that it is valid. I'm just pointing out that Joseph Smith had no problem leaving it in his inspired version of the Bible.

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The JST was not a complete work over of the Bible. Joseph Smith handled a few topics within the Bible and used it more as an effort to learn and receive revelation. Just because he left some things in, does not mean they are inspired. For example, his Bible retained the Song of Solomon, even though he said it is not inspired.

Why leave it in? Because it doesn't hurt anything. It is still an ancient text and we can learn from its ancient poetry.

And this is exactly why we have modern revelation. The Doctrine and Covenants and Book of Mormon clarify many things that are not clear in the Bible, or that were later interpolations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 Nephi 1 has Lehi in vision see God on his throne, and the Son of God descending down to earth and giving him a book to read. This is very anthropomorphic of both Father and Son. Alma 36 also has Alma seeing God on his throne.

A nebulous spirit being does not sit on a throne or hand someone a book.

There are other examples of this in the Book of Mormon, including 3 Nephi and Ether.

BTW, did you know that many major universities now give out Master and Doctorate degrees for theses on God being anthropomorphic, divine council of gods, etc.? For example, I have a friend at St Anthony's in the UK working on his program, with a focus on divine council and the anthropomorphic God.

So, obviously it isn't just 21st century Mormons that are taking a good, long look at these ancient concepts.

But are there any scripture that would specifically say that they believed in a corporeal Father God. The Bible describes God in anthropomorphic characteristics but there are many believers that do not take these descriptions literally. Could the Nephites have also not taken those descriptions as literal?

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

161sn 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).

And?

BTW, why are you cutting and pasting from something that isn't your own work without making that clear?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Nephite ancestors were from the tribe of Joseph in the Northern Kingdom. Lehi easily went into an Abrahamic nomad lifestyle for years. Abraham and the other patriarchs were very anthropomorphic.

When one considers the Documentary Hypothesis, Nephi and his people showed from their teachings to be very strong in the E/Elohist side of things, which was definitely anthropomorphic. Lehi's fight with the temple priests (and also that of Jeremiah) was about the changes in the religion, particularly in the worship in the temple. The priests left the belief of an anthropomorphic God, and went to something else.

I write about this on my blog and here in the new Book of Mormon study forum in lesson 1: Book of Mormon - LDS Social Network Forums

Also, Lehi and Nephi's Vision of the Tree of Life takes the concept of anthropomorphic God even further. In this instance, the Holy Spirit appears as a man that Nephi speaks with, even though he knows it is a Spirit. And in showing the Tree of Life, it is tied to the Virgin Mary. Nephi immediately recognizes the connection from the beliefs of the Northern Kingdom. Mary and the Tree are representative of the consort/wife of God, usually called Asherah. The "love of God" or Jesus becomes the fruit of the tree.

Ancient Israel did believe that God Elohim had a wife named Asherah. Both Father and Son are shown forth by the titles Elohim and Jehovah. Anciently, there was a divine council of gods, with Elohim at the head. Jehovah was one of the divine sons, given the nation of Israel as his kingdom to rule over on earth. Later, the Jews in Jerusalem combined the abilities of both Elohim and Jehovah, making just one monotheistic god. But this did not occur until the time of the Deuteronomist changes made in the temple in the times of King Josiah.

These are strong evidences that the Nephites believed in an anthropomorphic God. When Christ descended to the Nephites, they felt the wounds in his hands and feet. Yet, he also explained that the Father and Son were one God, and that they needed to be one with Christ, even as he was with God. Well, unless Jesus was saying they were going to be a substantial part of the Trinity, which does not follow from the textual evidence, then we must see that Jesus meant one in attributes, that he was separate physically from the Father, and that the Nephites were to become just like them.

There are many other points involved that point directly towards an anthropomorphic God in both the Bible and Book of Mormon. I've covered much of it in my lessons on the Old and New Testaments, found here: http://www.lds.net/forums/

If you want to learn more about these things, stay tuned to my Book of Mormon Sunday School lessons, because they will show the concepts of theophany, ascensions, man becoming like God, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, I have been watching this thread with interest, and even gotten frustrated because at times it felt like we were doing micro analysis on something that has no conclusive answer for me.

So, last night I sat at a Singles Fireside and listened to a man who speaks about 5 ancient languages talk about who God is, along with a session on how the KJV Bible came about. He talked in such lofty terms that I frankly did not understand a lot of what was said, and I was really confused about why, he, a scholar of megalithic status would bother talking to people who failed miserably at marriage?

Then later, he and his wife sat with us as we had refreshments. I have studied the Bible for many years and as Christians go, I thought I was like doing alright. Hah. I didn't even know what I did not know.

He explained that in the Greek, Jesus repeatedly says that he is "I am". We had a short conversation and then I realised that if what he is saying, and I believe, got out, it would set Christianity on its back side.

Gosh, I know so little...I wonder if his wife would let me clean her kitchen and scrub their toilets?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share