Two questions i dont know if there are available answers for... deep deep doctrine

[SteveVH]

Good points, it is interesting to think of Jesus actually being tempted as it seems like a complete knowledge of what sin and evil are would make them rather unappealing.

Definately something to ponder. We believe that Christ was 100% human and 100% divine, therefore he experienced everything a human can experience except sin. We can never say "you don't know what it is like." He does and has great compassion on us because of it.

Another good point, although I think the fall was for our benefit. God's love is constant, but we would not understand the extent of it without the fall. I think we would always be left wondering/questioning it without the actual demonstration

Well, I would say that Jesus our Savior was to our benefit, not the fall. This is the way I kind of think about it. If my child got lost in the woods for several days, one of the greatest experiences in his life (and mine) would be the moment I found him. Now he could not have had that experience unless he had become lost. But I would never desire for him to become lost again, nor would he. It wasn't the "being lost" (fall) that was good, but rather the "being found" (salvation). In a nutshell, we screwed up and God saved us.

As to the extent of God's love for us, you are correct. Jesus' suffering and death on the cross is the greatest demonstration of love that man has ever known. God turned the greatest crime (the murder of the Creator by the creature) ever known to man into the greatest blessing ever known to man; salvation. Even now, however, I don't think we will understand full extent of God's love for us until we see him "face to face".

If you don't mind me trying to take the conversation out of the realm of Adam and Eve, and instead going into the semantics of the Hebrew word "create", as well as the Greek used in the NT for adoption, (I love semantics).

Do you ever use the BLB? It's a great tool for looking tat the original language of the text, anyways, if you hold to the ex-Nihlo creationism, I was wondering how you interpret all the NT scriptures that use the word "Adopt" and "Adoption" to describe our relationship with Heavenly Father.

We believe that we were created by God and had no existence prior to this life. Genesis tells us that "The Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being". That means that he was not a living being before. When God created Adam and Eve they were created to be in a familial relationship with God. They were part of the family of God and even "walked" with God in the cool of the evening. As a good Father, he gave them everything they could desire.

At this point it we must diverge a little and speak of Christ's sonship as compared with the sonship of Adam. We believe, of course, that Christ's sonship is radically different. He was not created, as we were, but rather has existed as the Son of the Father for eternity. There was never a moment (speaking in terms of time) when the Father was without the Son. He was "begotten", not made, kind of like heat is begotten from a flame. One does not exist without the other. So Christ is God's only begotten Son. The rest of us were not "begotten, but rather made.

As a result of the fall, man lost this "familial relationship" with God. Through Christ, that relationship is restored, but through adaption back into the family of God. We had lost the status of "children of God" and we were never sons and daughters of God as Jesus is the Son of God. ""He predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—" (Ephesians 1:5 (NIV))

it talks about "becoming" children of Christ (rather than starting out that way), also, adoption is used to talk about someone taking care of another who they did not create.

Or someone who is not part of your family would be another way to look at it. Adaption is more than just taking care of someone. We are not foster children of God, we actually become part of His family. We, through our own (and Adam and Eve's choice) were outside of the family but through adaption we become true sons and daughters of the Father and brothers and sisters of Jesus.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

second "semantics" word to look over, is the word create - Hebrew this time, from the OT.

bara' is used in 54 times in the OT to describe everything from the creation of the Earth, to the creation of people, and clean hearts. I would like to consider this verse (that I often find myself debating with atheists for some reason)

Isa 45:7 I form 3335 the light 216, and create 1254 darkness 2822: I make 6213 peace 7965, and create 1254 evil 7451: I the LORD 3068 do 6213 all these [things].

the atheists like to use I45:7 to claim that God is a hypocritical monster who "creates darkness and evil" and I always tell them it's a translation error. That if you look at the original word - bara' - what it actually means is:

1) to create, shape, form

a) (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)

1) of heaven and earth

2) of individual man

3) of new conditions and circumstances

4) of transformations

b) (Niphal) to be created

1) of heaven and earth

2) of birth

3) of something new

4) of miracles

c) (Piel)

1) to cut down

2) to cut out

2) to be fat

a) (Hiphil) to make yourselves fat

Here is another Hebrew site of word studies:

Hebrew Root Word Studies

"Child Root (Branches of the Tree)

Pronunciation: "Qa-NeH"

Meaning: To build a nest.

Comments: This child root is a nest builder, one who builds a nest such as a bird. Also God as in Bereshiyt (Genesis) 14.19; "God most high creator (qaneh) of sky and earth". The English word "create" is an abstract word and a foreign concept to the Hebrews. While we see God as one who makes something from nothing (create), the Hebrews saw God like a bird who goes about acquiring and gathering materials to build a nest (qen), the sky and earth. The Hebrews saw man as the children (eggs) that God built the nest for. "

so when the Athiests bring up I45:7, and tell them it's a translation error, that what the verse should actually say is:

(Old Testament | Isaiah 45:7)

7 I form the light, and transform darkness: I make peace, and transform evil: I the LORD do all these things.

I agree completely that much gets lost in translation. We have to be very carelul when interpreting any ancient document. There is much more involved than just a direct, literal translation of a word. It is important to know what the words mean but other factors that have to be taken into consideration such as the various idioms used by a people in that culture, in that time, as well as the genre of writing being used. Is it poetic, prophetical, historical, etc... I have been taught to read scripture from four different points of view:

1) The literal sense; the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripure and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation.

2) The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism.

3) The moral sense. the events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction".

4) The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.

So when I read these words I do so in the light of my faith, knowing that God is all good, all merciful and all just. But Isaiah's words are also very true. Did not God create darkness and disaster for the Egyptians? My interpretation is also influenced by the fact that I do not believe that God simply organized existing matter and that this matter is co-eternal with God. This discussion could get very involved, but it basically boils down to the fact that if God did not create everything from nothing then He was dependent upon something other than Himself in order to "create". If God is dependent upon anything then He cannot be omnipotent, or all-powerful.

Another side to this is simple reason. Something doesn't come from nothing. Matter did not come into existence by its own volition. Everything we can observe has a cause. A tree grows because a seed fell into the soil from another tree. The mountians rise because of tectonic plates smashing in on each other. Islands come out of the ocean because of volcanic activity. We can observe the natural world around us and conclude that everything in existence was caused by a prior event. So what was the first event and what or Who caused it? We conclude that there must be an uncaused cause; God, the author and creator of everything that exists. When he said "Let there be light" there was light...

Blessings to you to as well!

Edited August 23, 2012 by StephenVH

[Traveler]

It is a flawed question because your premise is incorrect. Why is one with less intelligence more susceptible to evil? If one commits "evil" due to some deficiency then one's culpability in that evil act is mitigated accordingly.

Scripture is a written text. It can reslove nothing. It is people and their interpretation of the text that must resolve doctrinal disputes. While this is not the place or time to do this, I can demonstrate to you that the Bible is the most relaible text that we possess from antiquity. The fact that one cannot find evidence to support their preconcieved notions does not mean that something is missing in the Bible. It means one had better reconsider their position.

Which Bible and which text? The documents assumed the most reliable for more than a thousand years of tradition were proven to be some of the most inaccurate from the scriptural text discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls. One of the documents we have was called the Antiquities of the Jews (written by Josephus) - and though it is not scripture text - what Biblical text of that era do you believe to be more reliable?

Also you statement that the scriptures are not for doctrine contradicts 2Tim 3:16. Part of the problem is that man and not G-d has determined what scriptures are to be inclusive in the Bible.

You can read for yourself what God's reaction was to the sin of Adam and Eve. It wasn't pretty.

Hmmmm - that is your interpretation. It is my understanding and belief that everything G-d did for Adam and Eve (as well as their children) was beautiful, wonderful and of great benefit.

Sorry, you lost me there. God is always just and merciful. If you are interpreting the text to read differently then I think you had better take a second look. God cannot be unjust or unmerciful. He was just and more than merciful with Adam and Eve. He promised to send a Savior to undo what they had done.

Why are the children of Adam and Eve "Punished"? For What?

If one is decieved into making a choice and has no understanding of what they are doing then there is no sin. Sin requires knowledge and consent.

Then why do you say Eve sinned? (see Genesis 3:13).

Are you assuming that this is my position?

Of whom are you speaking?

Which do you believe to be more informative and accurate concerning the creation - Genesis or Scientific observation? For example Genesis chapter 1 verses 11-13 indicates that on day 3 grass producing seeds and trees creating fruit were created on earth -but on day 4 (Genesis 1:14-19 the light of the sun and moon were created. What grass will produce seeds without the warmth and light of the sun and what trees will produce fruit without the warmth and light of the sun?

What do you understand to be the accurate truth from these versus? and will help the student understand such things? Is Genesis more accurate concerning creation than ancient Egyptian text? Sorry I realize this is a trick question.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

... We believe that Christ was 100% human and 100% divine,...

What does 100% mean to you?

The Traveler

[SteveVH]

Which Bible and which text? The documents assumed the most reliable for more than a thousand years of tradition were proven to be some of the most inaccurate from the scriptural text discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls. One of the documents we have was called the Antiquities of the Jews (written by Josephus) - and though it is not scripture text - what Biblical text of that era do you believe to be more reliable?

The Septuagint.

Also you statement that the scriptures are not for doctrine contradicts 2Tim 3:16. Part of the problem is that man and not G-d has determined what scriptures are to be inclusive in the Bible.

Well, I didn't say that the scriptures are not for doctrine. What I said is that the disputes concerning doctrine are the result of man's interpretation and his desire to make them say something they wish to believe rather than what they actually say. The scriptures cannot resolve human disputes; that has to be done by humans. That is why we believe Christ founded a Church and sent his Holy Spirit to guide it into all truth. The Church was to be the final authority.

And you are correct that men chose the books to be included in the canon of scripture; actually a bunch of Catholic bishops. But if you do not believe that the canon of scripture is valid because "man and not God" determined them then how do you have any confidence that they are scripture? These "men" were guided by the Holy Spirit in making their determination and if they weren't, then you should not consider them scripture.

It is my understanding and belief that everything G-d did for Adam and Eve (as well as their children) was beautiful, wonderful and of great benefit.

I couldn't agree more, yet they still suffered the consequences of their sin, did they not? It wasn't that God was less than generous, it was that man turned his back on God. If my child runs away from home it doesn't mean I don't love him and want everything in the world for him and that I would do anything to get him back, even giving my own life. But he will suffer on the streets due to his own choice, not because I punished him for running away. We left the family of God and God allowed it because of our free will with which He will never interfere.

Why are the children of Adam and Eve "Punished"? For What?

They aren't punished. They are born into a fallen world which exists as a result of the sin of Adam and Eve. If a child is born into a disfunctional family does he not suffer? Is it his fault? No, of course not, but he still must live with the circumstances in which he finds himself. We were born into a disfuntional human family which is the very reason we need to be saved.

Then why do you say Eve sinned? (see Genesis 3:13).

The following is my quote to which you were responding:

If one is decieved into making a choice and has no understanding of what they are doing then there is no sin. Sin requires knowledge and consent.

You are assuming then, that Eve had no culpability in her decision, that she was completely innocent in making the choice she made. I don't believe this to be true and I base this on God's reaction. Knowing that God is all good, all just and all merciful, do you think that He would have reacted this way if Eve was not a fault?

Which do you believe to be more informative and accurate concerning the creation - Genesis or Scientific observation? For example Genesis chapter 1 verses 11-13 indicates that on day 3 grass producing seeds and trees creating fruit were created on earth -but on day 4 (Genesis 1:14-19 the light of the sun and moon were created. What grass will produce seeds without the warmth and light of the sun and what trees will produce fruit without the warmth and light of the sun?

Genesis is not meant to be a scientific description of creation. It is the story of the fall of man from God's grace and the love of God who would send a Savior to pull us out of the mess we are in. So no comparison can be made between the creation account in Genesis and scientific observation. If I want to know scientifically how the moon came into existence I will consult a scientist. If I want to know the story of salvation history I'll read the Bible.

What do you understand to be the accurate truth from these versus? and will help the student understand such things?

The accurate truth is that God created the universe and everything that is in it and that he loves us so much that he would send a Savior.

Is Genesis more accurate concerning creation than ancient Egyptian text? Sorry I realize this is a trick question.

More accurate concerning what; the science behind creation or the truth of the one, true God?

The Traveler

Edited August 23, 2012 by StephenVH

[SteveVH]

What does 100% mean to you?

The Traveler

It means he was completley human, as human as you and I. He was also completely divine, as evidenced by his miracles. He was God, made flesh. This is a big difference in our beliefs. You do not distinguish between the nature of God (divine) and the nature of man (human), but rather believe we are all made from the same stuff. I am certainly open to correction here as I don't want to put words into your mouth, but that is my understanding. We believe we will share in God's divinity, but that we do not possess divinity within ourselves. It is a complete gift. It is the difference bewteen "theosis" and "exaltation", but that is probably better left for another time.

God bless.

[Sicily510]

Why is it so easy to interpret something so sacred and simple into ones own understanding ,yet, it's hard to unite in one mind the gospel of Jesus Christ? Everything that is taught that is of righteousness can only come from Jesus Christ, he is the framer and the laborer that was willing to do the will of our Eternal Heavenly Father. In my opinion, it is the freedom of choice which Adam and Eve inherited and Heavenly Father granted. Although their freedom of choice was not right they were not condemned eternally but temporally, for through our Eternal Fathers grace are we able to repent and return to him.

Just like a teenager whom may disobey his/her parent some parents have so much compassion to let their teenager choose of their own free will what they want in life hoping that he/she will return and know what's right (unfortunately, some do not return when they are not taught the foundation of Jesus Christ). In my opinion, sometimes analyzing the knowledge of our Heavenly Father can lead to destruction, because we cannot truly comprehend or even know everything thus why we live and walk by faith. Hoping that through the grace of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ our family can heal from a broken home to protecting our families that by living the gospel and sustaining our homes upon the rock (Jesus Christ), our foundation.

Helaman 5:12

12 And now, my sons, remember, remember that it is upon the rock of our Redeemer, who is Christ, the Son of God, that ye must build your foundation; that when the devil shall send forth his mighty winds, yea, his shafts in the whirlwind, yea, when all his hail and his mighty storm shall beat upon you, it shall have no power over you to drag you down to the gulf of misery and endless wo, because of the rock upon which ye are built, which is a sure foundation, a foundation whereon if men build they cannot fall.

My understanding of what's been described in the scriptures of Jesus Christ is that he was a prophet in the Old Testament attesting to the truth that Heavenly Father lives. He was doing service for the sick, the lowly in heart, poor and elderly. He was exemplifying the ability to be foreordained and administer the sacrament, laying on of hands to heal etc.

I truly believe that if one can focus on Jesus Christ and his doctrines and principles one can fully be enlightened with Heavenly Fathers wonderful and marvelous plan.

[SteveVH]

You say, "man fell from grace". If God did not intend for man to fall, why didn't he just start over? Destroy Adam and Eve....like the inhabitants of the earth during the flood? Just start over.....

Because He loves us and willed to save us rather than destroy us.

If we are as you declare, "God's children"...when did this occur?

At our baptism, through which entered into the family of God.

Did we exist before we were born?

No.

If not, why would God continue to create people to suffer the consequences of Adam's choice? If he didn't plan for the Fall, how did Satan get one over on God so easily? If God is "all knowing" how did HE not know this would happen?

He knew very well it would happen. He knows everything. Knowing that something will happen and desiring that it will happen are two very different things. What was absolutlety necessary was our free will. It is one of the ways we are made in his image. Without free will love cannot exist. We were created to love. With free will there is always the option to choose otherwise. What is so amazing about our God is that, while we are sinners, He loves us beyond comprehension. The sin of man brought death and evil into the world. Christ came and defeated death and brought us peace, even in the midst of suffering.

If God loves his children, why create them to suffer an Eternity in a burning hell of endless torment because of Adam's decision unless they would believe in Christ whom the vast majority of all that have ever lived or ever will live will never hear about?

How does one Come unto Christ and in HIM find Eternal Life if they have never heard of Christ? How about all of those that were destroyed in the flood or the billions that never heard of Christ while in mortality? What about infants and children that die?

God didn't create anyone to suffer an eternity in a burning hell of endless torment. God does not "send" anyone to hell. Those that go there have made the choice to live their lives without God. He does not interfere in that choice. As for hearing about Christ in order to be saved, we know that God's desire is that all be saved. He has written his laws upon our hearts. He does not condemn a person because they did not have the good fortune to hear about Christ. They are judged according to what they know and how they respond.

[Traveler]

The Septuagint.

Well, I didn't say that the scriptures are not for doctrine. What I said is that the disputes concerning doctrine are the result of man's interpretation and his desire to make them say something they wish to believe rather than what they actually say. The scriptures cannot resolve human disputes; that has to be done by humans. That is why we believe Christ founded a Church and sent his Holy Spirit to guide it into all truth. The Church was to be the final authority.

Your understanding and mine are quite close and may only differ by slight misunderstanding in words and terms used. But for me I would say that authority remains with G-d. The "church" is in essence the kingdom over which G-d presides. Obviously there are counterfeits - through out the history of man many have claimed to be associated with the church that is the kingdom of G-d - just as there have been many that claim to be the anointed (Christ). But I would submit that to falsely claim to be associated with the church or kingdom of G-d even if one is very cleverly deceived is no less turning one's back on G-d than was the error of Adam and Eve. Are you willing to accept the eternal consequences. The difference - as I see it between your and my concepts - I do not believe that any level of deception can be involved in a person exercising free will. If they do not know (100%) what they are doing - it is a lie to say it is anything like or associated with free will.

And you are correct that men chose the books to be included in the canon of scripture; actually a bunch of Catholic bishops. But if you do not believe that the canon of scripture is valid because "man and not God" determined them then how do you have any confidence that they are scripture? These "men" were guided by the Holy Spirit in making their determination and if they weren't, then you should not consider them scripture.

You greatly misunderstand my points - the fact the Catholic Bishops selected certain books as scripture and certain other books as not scripture - are parts of some ancient documents to be considered and parts of other ancient documents to be excluded from important consideration - has nothing to do what-so-ever with what is scripture from G-d. I find the LDS concept most entreating and correct - that the books of the Bible are only to be considered scripture if they are translated and interpreted correctly. From some of your comments this seems to be your understanding as well? One point on which we may differ - is that I am open to consider that there is more scripture than what we are to understand form our current modern "Versions" of the Bible.

I couldn't agree more, yet they still suffered the consequences of their sin, did they not? It wasn't that God was less than generous, it was that man turned his back on God. If my child runs away from home it doesn't mean I don't love him and want everything in the world for him and that I would do anything to get him back, even giving my own life. But he will suffer on the streets due to his own choice, not because I punished him for running away. We left the family of God and God allowed it because of our free will with which He will never interfere.

You and I differ greatly here - I believe that long before Adam and Eve were in the Garden that G-d desired man to come to a knowledge of good and evil. I believe G-d carefully laid out a flawless plan as to how this could happen. I also believe that before the physical bodies of Adam and Eve were created that G-d selected the perfect entities to carry out this flawless plan of his and that G-d counseled with Adam and Eve before their physical bodies were created and in full knowledge Adam and Eve expressed honest and complete free will to make a sacrifice to insure that G-d's flawless plan work.

They aren't punished. They are born into a fallen world which exists as a result of the sin of Adam and Eve. If a child is born into a disfunctional family does he not suffer? Is it his fault? No, of course not, but he still must live with the circumstances in which he finds himself. We were born into a disfuntional human family which is the very reason we need to be saved.

I believe that each person that come to this fallen world does so as a sacrifice in order to obtain greater blessings that could otherwise be. Since I believe we exercised free will in this decision - life for me appears to have a different meaning - not as a consequence but a divine blessing.

You are assuming then, that Eve had no culpability in her decision, that she was completely innocent in making the choice she made. I don't believe this to be true and I base this on God's reaction. Knowing that God is all good, all just and all merciful, do you think that He would have reacted this way if Eve was not a fault?

I am assuming there is more to the story than what we are told in Biblical scriptures. I believe G-d teaches us here line upon line upon line and precept upon precept upon precept. If we are not open to G-d's teaching - then by our free will it will not continue. I believe that like Adam and Eve some are tricked (deceived) into believing that the Bible is all we need to know and understand. My purpose in posting is to present another possibility for consideration.

Genesis is not meant to be a scientific description of creation. It is the story of the fall of man from God's grace and the love of God who would send a Savior to pull us out of the mess we are in. So no comparison can be made between the creation account in Genesis and scientific observation. If I want to know scientifically how the moon came into existence I will consult a scientist. If I want to know the story of salvation history I'll read the Bible.

Hmmmm - where do you turn for the truth! Why the particular order in days of creation? My point is that if a person cannot reconcile the truths of Genesis with the truths of science - why do you believe they can reconcile the truths of Genesis by its self. The point is - if a person can recognize truth - what does it matter the source of that truth. And if they cannot recognize truth - what does it matter the source?

The accurate truth is that God created the universe and everything that is in it and that he loves us so much that he would send a Savior.

More accurate concerning what; the science behind creation or the truth of the one, true God?

If G-d created the universe with the intent to force all the children to suffer in a fallen state without giving them any choice in the matter? If mercy and justice is a result of this fallen state alone - even though there is a Savior that does not save every child ever born from hell - there is no justice or mercy. If he intended for Adam and Eve (and their children) to live in paradise and not fall - then it is the very plan of G-d that failed and we should not be blaming Adam and Eve for failing G-d - it is his plan that failed to account properly for mankind.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

It means he was completley human, as human as you and I. He was also completely divine, as evidenced by his miracles. He was God, made flesh. This is a big difference in our beliefs. You do not distinguish between the nature of God (divine) and the nature of man (human), but rather believe we are all made from the same stuff. I am certainly open to correction here as I don't want to put words into your mouth, but that is my understanding. We believe we will share in God's divinity, but that we do not possess divinity within ourselves. It is a complete gift. It is the difference bewteen "theosis" and "exaltation", but that is probably better left for another time.

God bless.

We differ then - I do not believe Jesus was a fallen human, as is the rest of humanity, in any sense of the word or understanding or interpretation of it. Jesus had some similarities - but I believe the notion of 100% is a deception - no different than the deception presented to Adam and Eve by the deceiver.

The Traveler

[SteveVH]

We differ then - I do not believe Jesus was a fallen human, as is the rest of humanity, in any sense of the word or understanding or interpretation of it. Jesus had some similarities - but I believe the notion of 100% is a deception - no different than the deception presented to Adam and Eve by the deceiver.

The Traveler

Could you please direct me to the post where I said "Jesus is a fallen human"? I believe I said he was like us in every way except sin. If you have no sin then you are not a fallen human being. If you do not believe Jesus was 100% human then what exactly do you believe? Do you think he was just pretending to be human?

[Traveler]

Could you please direct me to the post where I said "Jesus is a fallen human"? I believe I said he was like us in every way except sin. If you have no sin then you are not a fallen human being. If you do not believe Jesus was 100% human then what exactly do you believe? Do you think he was just pretending to be human?

Your post #60 where I ask you to define 100%. Since 100% of humans are fallen and you did not offer any exceptions or differentiation in your 100% human nature that includes our fallen nature. If it does not include the fallen human nature then you misled me with poorly defined and vague terms and I suggest a more straight forward (honest) definition that actually applies to all human species available for actual comparison.

Shall we go back and redefine what exactly you really mean as 100% human?

The Traveler

PS. Just thought to add something - it appears to me that the scriptures talk about putting off our human nature and being born of the spirit to become one with G-d. If we must put off our human nature to become one with G-d - I do not understand how it is that Jesus - who was one with the Father could have a 100% human nature. This appears to be a false doctrine to me. What am I missing?

Edited August 23, 2012 by Traveler

[bytor2112]

Because He loves us and willed to save us rather than destroy us.

Um....I guess he didn't love those tat HE destroyed in the flood?

At our baptism, through which entered into the family of God.

So, Baptism is necessary to be part of God's family. What about all of those who are not baptized?

No.

So, why not destroy Adam and Eve and start over? They were just his creations and not his family....right?

He knew very well it would happen. He knows everything. Knowing that something will happen and desiring that it will happen are two very different things. What was absolutlety necessary was our free will. It is one of the ways we are made in his image. Without free will love cannot exist. We were created to love. With free will there is always the option to choose otherwise. What is so amazing about our God is that, while we are sinners, He loves us beyond comprehension. The sin of man brought death and evil into the world. Christ came and defeated death and brought us peace, even in the midst of suffering.

Sounds like if God knew it would happen...that he planned for it to happen.Christ defeated death and brought peace to all believe? What of those who have never heard or never will?

God didn't create anyone to suffer an eternity in a burning hell of endless torment. God does not "send" anyone to hell. Those that go there have made the choice to live their lives without God. He does not interfere in that choice. As for hearing about Christ in order to be saved, we know that God's desire is that all be saved. He has written his laws upon our hearts. He does not condemn a person because they did not have the good fortune to hear about Christ. They are judged according to what they know and how they respond.

So, they are judged by their....works? No need to know of Christ? Or to hear about Christ? Why then the need for Christ if indeed HIS laws are written in our hearts?

[SteveVH]

Your understanding and mine are quite close and may only differ by slight misunderstanding in words and terms used. But for me I would say that authority remains with G-d.

Absolutley, and to those to whom he gives that authority. No man has authority by his own right. But it is very clear that Christ gace incredible authority to his Church; the power to bind and loose; the power to forgive sin. "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven". "Whose sins you forgive, they shall be forgiven and whose sins you retain, they shall be retained."

The "church" is in essence the kingdom over which G-d presides. Obviously there are counterfeits - through out the history of man many have claimed to be associated with the church that is the kingdom of G-d - just as there have been many that claim to be the anointed (Christ).

Agreed.

But I would submit that to falsely claim to be associated with the church or kingdom of G-d even if one is very cleverly deceived is no less turning one's back on G-d than was the error of Adam and Eve.

I would agree. As I have said in previous posts, I hold nothing against Adam and Eve. They did nothing that I haven't done in that I have sinned against God. I don't believe my sin is that I am falsely claiming to be associated with the church or the kingdom of God, but yes, I am a sinner, just as you and everyone else on the face of the earth are sinners.

Are you willing to accept the eternal consequences.

No. That is why I submit my life to Jesus Christ who takes away my sins.

The difference - as I see it between your and my concepts - I do not believe that any level of deception can be involved in a person exercising free will. If they do not know (100%) what they are doing - it is a lie to say it is anything like or associated with free will.

Well, lets try to put this into real terms. Lets say that a married man becomes very attracted to another woman. The temptation to have a relationship with her is very strong. It seems she is willing and the lies whispered in his ear by the enemy (satan) tell him that it won't really hurt anyone; no one will find out. Now, he has a choice to make. Does he remain faithful to his wife or does he give in to the temptation to satisfy his fleshly desires. He chooses to have the affair. His wife finds out about it and it results in a broken home. His children suffer and are deeply wounded. Is he in any way culpable in this situation or is he off the hook because he was tempted and decieved by the enemy?

Remember, he never lost the choice to remain faithful.

You greatly misunderstand my points - the fact the Catholic Bishops selected certain books as scripture and certain other books as not scripture - are parts of some ancient documents to be considered and parts of other ancient documents to be excluded from important consideration - has nothing to do what-so-ever with what is scripture from G-d.

Really? And how do you know that the books of the Bible are scripture? Why was Hebrews included and the Didache not? Who told you that it was scripture? It did not drop out of the sky with a note attached saying "this is the Word of God", signed, God. Had it not been for those Catholic bishop's discernment, you would not have the Bible which you consider scripture. They were led by the Holy Spirit, at least we all had better hope they were.

I find the LDS concept most entreating and correct - that the books of the Bible are only to be considered scripture if they are translated and interpreted correctly.

One's ability to interpret and translate has no bearing on whether or not the books of the Bible are scripture. They are. The inspired character of the books does not change because one does not understand it. It only has to do with whether or not one is able to grasp the truth that exists there. That is why we believe that an authoritative interpreter (the Church) is absolutley necessary. These days everyone becomes their own authority and we can see the result of that all around us to the tune of between 35,000 - 50,000 "churches" that all proclaim to have the truth yet disagree with each other on what that truth is.

From some of your comments this seems to be your understanding as well? One point on which we may differ - is that I am open to consider that there is more scripture than what we are to understand form our current modern "Versions" of the Bible.

Well, my Church has the original version of the Bible as it determined the very canon of the Bible. But I agree, the Bible is not the only source of divine truth. We hold Sacred Tradition as equal to Sacred Scripture. Not everything that was said and done by Jesus and the Apostles is written down. Sacred Scripture is only that part of Sacred Tradition commited to writing. The Catholic Church is not a Church of the Bible, but rather of the Apostles. The Church didn't come from the Bible, the Bible came from the Church.

You and I differ greatly here - I believe that long before Adam and Eve were in the Garden that G-d desired man to come to a knowledge of good and evil. I believe G-d carefully laid out a flawless plan as to how this could happen. I also believe that before the physical bodies of Adam and Eve were created that G-d selected the perfect entities to carry out this flawless plan of his and that G-d counseled with Adam and Eve before their physical bodies were created and in full knowledge Adam and Eve expressed honest and complete free will to make a sacrifice to insure that G-d's flawless plan work.

Ok.

Hmmmm - where do you turn for the truth! Why the particular order in days of creation? My point is that if a person cannot reconcile the truths of Genesis with the truths of science - why do you believe they can reconcile the truths of Genesis by its self. The point is - if a person can recognize truth - what does it matter the source of that truth. And if they cannot recognize truth - what does it matter the source?

The truths of Genesis are not speaking of the truths of science. Genesis speaks about salvation history, not scientific history, thus we are not required to match up our knowledge of science with the creation story.

Reading a book such as Genesis is challenging in that it comes from a time, place and culture which was very different from our own. The Jews of that period used storytelling techniques with which we are unfamiliar. For instance, in addition to the example you gave, light is made on the first day, however the sun, moon and stars are made on the fourth day. Take a look at Psalm 104. The psalmist describes God setting the earth on its foundations, covering it with the deep as with a garment, laying the beams of his chambers on the waters and stretching out the heavens like a tent. To read these texts in a modern literalistic or scientific manner one would have to conclude that the Hebrews believed that the earth literally possessed pillars below and a dome above. There is a tendancy for modern readers to view what is most recent as most relevant and what is previous as primitive.

We are accutomed to straightforward, linear writing, and such writing helps us understand much about the sun, moon and stars but does little to teach us about the Love that made and moves the universe. Genesis is written in the genre of poetic prose. Its purpose is not to report scientific data but rather to communicate a profound theological meditation on the act of creation. Both the creation account in Genesis and Psalm 104 envision the heavens as a dome and the earth upheld by pillars in order to communicate the meaning of creation; that creation is a temple and pointing us to our destiny which is praise and worship of the Creator.

So no. You will get nowhere trying to make Genesis work with scientific knowledge. That was not the purpose for which it was written.

If G-d created the universe with the intent to force all the children to suffer in a fallen state without giving them any choice in the matter?

First of all, God has never had the intent to force anyone to suffer. It was the action of mankind, through his own free will that caused suffering, not God. So if we are going to blame anyone, we need to blame ourselves.

If mercy and justice is a result of this fallen state alone - even though there is a Savior that does not save every child ever born from hell - there is no justice or mercy. If he intended for Adam and Eve (and their children) to live in paradise and not fall - then it is the very plan of G-d that failed and we should not be blaming Adam and Eve for failing G-d - it is his plan that failed to account properly for mankind.

I don't know if you have children or not. Why should any of us bring children into this world? There is a chance that harm could come to them. If harm does come to them is it our fault for bringing them into the world in the first place? Would it be better if they were never born? I don't think so. I will repeat this one more time. God created us with free will so that we may freely choose to love Him and live in eternal happiness with Him. We made the wrong choice and turned our back on God. Out of his love for us He saved us anyway. What more do you want from God? It is not His fault that we find ourselves in this predicament.

Just one last note. I want to thank you for this conversation. We may disagree on many issues but I have learned a lot about what you believe and a glimpse into why you believe it.

Thanks and God bless.

Steve

Edited August 23, 2012 by StephenVH

[SteveVH]

Um....I guess he didn't love those tat HE destroyed in the flood?

You are asking me to step into the mind of God. What I know is this; that God is all just, all loving and all merciful. Those that were destroyed by the flood had completley rejected God. Their fate had been sealed by their own actions. God washed away the violence, bloodshed and immorality that plagued mankind at that time in history. He also promised never to do it again. God is not a fluffy teddy bear who doesn't care how we act or what we do. His justice will always stand and for those of us that seek Him and respond to the grace He has offered, His mercy is stronger than His justice.

So, Baptism is necessary to be part of God's family. What about all of those who are not baptized?

We believe that those who have no opportunity for baptism can still be saved. Only God knows if they would have desired baptism had they known. So we believe in the baptism of desire and depend upon God's mercy. He is the one who judges.

So, why not destroy Adam and Eve and start over? They were just his creations and not his family....right?

That's not how God operates. The parable of the prodigal son tells us exactly why he didn't just start over. The son left the father. The father did not leave the son. He waits for us to return to Him and become once again a part of his family.

Sounds like if God knew it would happen...that he planned for it to happen.

It doesn't sound like that to me at all. Even with all of the evil experienced in the world, love is possible. There are many who truly love God. This is the purpose for which we were created and it would not be possible if we could not freely choose to love. So the risk that we might choose differently was worth it. Love exists.

Christ defeated death and brought peace to all believe? What of those who have never heard or never will?

I think I've already addressed this question.

So, they are judged by their....works? No need to know of Christ? Or to hear about Christ? Why then the need for Christ if indeed HIS laws are written in our hearts?

No. I would say that they are judged by their hearts. We need Christ because while his laws are written on our hearts, we break those laws and sin. God is just, of that we can be sure. It may very well be more difficult for those of us that have heard the Gospel. Waht I do know is that God desires all to be saved and judges us based upon what we have done with what we have been given.

[SteveVH]

Your post #60 where I ask you to define 100%. Since 100% of humans are fallen and you did not offer any exceptions or differentiation in your 100% human nature that includes our fallen nature. If it does not include the fallen human nature then you misled me with poorly defined and vague terms and I suggest a more straight forward (honest) definition that actually applies to all human species available for actual comparison.

While I find your assertion that I am being dishonest extremely offensive, I will answer your question. I asked you where I said that Jesus was a fallen human being. You directed me to my Post #60. Nowhere in that post did I say that Jesus was a fallen human being, so I don't appreciate you twisting my words in order for you to form an argument. Just so we are clear. Jesus was like us in every way except sin. I have said this more than once in other posts on this thread and I think you know that.

PS. Just thought to add something - it appears to me that the scriptures talk about putting off our human nature and being born of the spirit to become one with G-d. If we must put off our human nature to become one with G-d - I do not understand how it is that Jesus - who was one with the Father could have a 100% human nature. This appears to be a false doctrine to me. What am I missing?

You are mistaken. We are to put off our former way of life, our sinful ways, not our humanity. Granted, we rely on the Holy Spirit to renew us that we may put on the new self, but that is when we become truly human.

(Ephesians 4:22-24)

You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.

[bytor2112]

You are asking me to step into the mind of God. What I know is this; that God is all just, all loving and all merciful. Those that were destroyed by the flood had completley rejected God. Their fate had been sealed by their own actions. God washed away the violence, bloodshed and immorality that plagued mankind at that time in history. He also promised never to do it again. God is not a fluffy teddy bear who doesn't care how we act or what we do. His justice will always stand and for those of us that seek Him and respond to the grace He has offered, His mercy is stronger than His justice.

So, the children, babies....all had rejected God? If by responding to HIS grace, you mean Christ....then again, I would ask, How does one Come unto Christ that has never heard of Christ. If God is just, how can salvation come to people in different ways?

We believe that those who have no opportunity for baptism can still be saved. Only God knows if they would have desired baptism had they known. So we believe in the baptism of desire and depend upon God's mercy. He is the one who judges.

Wouldn't accepting Christ necessarily occur before Baptism? Does God judge those desires and then allow them to be baptized.....in the resurrection? If not, is baptism necessary?

That's not how God operates. The parable of the prodigal son tells us exactly why he didn't just start over. The son left the father. The father did not leave the son. He waits for us to return to Him and become once again a part of his family.

Yet, the story of Noah tells us HE does operate that way. No chance for all of those souls? No opportunity to have a mighty change of heart....just destruction....even the children.

It doesn't sound like that to me at all. Even with all of the evil experienced in the world, love is possible. There are many who truly love God. This is the purpose for which we were created and it would not be possible if we could not freely choose to love. So the risk that we might choose differently was worth it. Love exists.

Why? We didn't exist before God created us.....so why again, wouldn't HE just begin again. It seems that God has no problem with wiping out HIS creations if HE is not pleased with their choices. Sounds to me like the wiley ole devil got one over on God pretty easily.....far too easily if you ask me.

I think I've already addressed this question.

You did...but your answer is non sensical...respectfully.

No. I would say that they are judged by their hearts. We need Christ because while his laws are written on our hearts, we break those laws and sin. God is just, of that we can be sure. It may very well be more difficult for those of us that have heard the Gospel. Waht I do know is that God desires all to be saved and judges us based upon what we have done with what we have been given.

Sounds like all those that lived before Christ....don't really need to know of Christ. Can Christ's atonement and the message of the Gospel change hearts and make bad men good? Can someone live a life of evil and wickedness and be changed and made clean by the Blood of Christ. Of course.

So again, how do those that never had the opportunity to have their heart changed and their desires turned to righteousness by Christ do so if they never heard of HIM or died without that Hope? If God simply judges that they likely would have accepted Christ and changed their ways.....sounds like Christ wasn't all that necessary if God can just judge without Christ serving as an Advocate for each of us.

We believe that Christ satisfied the demands of justice and made mercy available to all who believe and obey. We further believe that all who live or ever lived will have the opportunity to hear about Christ even after they are departed from this mortal sojourn. All must Come unto Christ in the same way....faith in Him, repentance, baptism by immersion and the gift of the Holy Ghost. That is why we do baptisms vicariously for the dead. We believe that missionary work continues in the world of spirits. And of course we believe that we existed Eternally as Spirit children of God before we were born into mortality.

Edited August 24, 2012 by bytor2112

[Vort]

I am not a moderator.

That said, one of my pet peeves is people debating non-LDS doctrine on the LDS Gospel Discussion forum. Whatever Stephen believes, it has little or nothing to do with LDS gospel discussion. I have no authority to mandate anything, but for whatever my opinion may count (and I realize that may be nothing), I would prefer a debate over Catholic theology to take place somewhere else.

[SteveVH]

Let me again go to the original Hebrew of this verse, as I don't think it is saying what you think it is. (Sorry, I just started a Hebrew class, and I'm into looking at the original now)

Hebrew uses different sentence structures than English does, it’s kind of like trying to take something that Yoda from star wars said, and switching it around into something that we are used to:

This has a very good word-for-word discussion of 2:7

Genesis 2:7.

Remember to read through the verse right to left, not left to right. Each word is numbered, and discussed in depth under word study.

From 1st paragraph: “There's no indication that God made Adam from the dust of the earth (a word that should have occurred between words 3 and 4). In stead it reads that He made Adam (into) "dust of the earth," for the life soul.”

skipping to the individual word meanings:

1) The letter waw, means and. Verb yasar means fashion, form. It differs from bara, to create (Gen 1:1) and asa, to make or do (Gen 1:16). This word is used when something is made from something else (for instance a jar from clay).

…

11) Again the letter waw, meaning and. The verb haya is the regular word for to be, but it must be stressed that the Hebrew reckons being after behavior. For a closer look at to be in Hebrew, take a brief detour to our article to be is to do.

read through the “To Be is To Do:

To Be Is To Do: A Fundamental Principle of the Hebrew Language

“In Hebrew Scriptures, and all models derived thereof, entities are reckoned solely after their behavior and not after their appearance. An entity is a behavior, not that which executes the behavior.” The word become is describing an action that a being is doing.

Changed, did you also see this little gem in your reference?

"The word "mother" comes from a root from which also the word for "people" or "nation" is derived, and we must conclude that Scripture demands Eve to be the entire bio-sphere."

I would be very leery of these folk's interpretation as well as the methods they use in arriving at them. They interpret these passages as if they were written in a modern linear fashion. They were not. Genesis is written in a peotic genre and any literalistic interpretation means that one has failed before one has begun. Using this method of interpretation leads one to believe things like "Scripture demands Eve to be the entire bio-sphere". I don't mean to burst your bubble but I think these folks are more "New Age" than anything else. Never heard of them before and I don't think Ill visit that sight again anytime soon. I hope I haven't offended you.

I think the Egyptians invited the destroying angels unto themselves - I think they did it to themselves.

Do you think the angels operate independently of God?

God is not dependent on us - He is loving, and perfect, and glorious with or without us. He does not need us for anything. I would say He would not need to make us from nothing for any reason.... If there was a time when God was all that existed, why would He need to create something more out of nothing? Why would He need to create us?

God didn't "need" to create anything. He is perfectly complete and whole without us. He created us for no other purpose than to love us and for us to love Him. You are correct, God has no need for us. He just loves us. We are the crown of his creation, made in his own image and likeness.

I was speaking of the belief that God did not really create, but rather organized existing matter into the universe we see today. This belief holds that matter, as well as "intelligences" are co-eternal with God; that they have always existed and never had a beginning. I was making the argument that the only eternal being as well as thing that is eternal is God; that all matter, as well as everything spiritual (angels) was created by the uncaused cause who we call God. Only He has existed from eternity. That was the explanation of my own beliefs. The only reason that I even brought it up was because I think this difference in beliefs is an underlyng factor in how we picture the entire story of salvation history, from Adam to Christ.

I think it is hard to imagine something with no beginning. As you and I agree that God has no beginning, let's start there. Did God "come into existence of his own volition"?

Indeed, it is hard to imagine something with no beginning, because everything has a beginning except God. Our entire experience is with things that have a beginning. To answer your question, though, if you agree that God had no beginning then why would you imagine that He ever "came into existence"? He always was. Actually it is more correct to say that he always IS. The human mind cannot really fathom eternity as we have never experienced it. When we think of God without a beginning we think in terms of time. Eternity is outside of time and space; it is always now and history unfolds at once before the eyes of God.

Did God (something) come from nothing? Is God "caused" into existence by anything? I think you would say no, that He just always was - He did not come from anywhere, because He always was.

Correct.

God is not something from nothing, and I think neither is anything else "something from nothing".

You are correct again. God is not "something" from nothing. He always was. He didn't just pop into existence from nothing. There was never a time when He did not exist.

You are also correct that nothing else is "something from nothing". That is why matter and intelligences and spiritual beings could not be co-eternal with God. They could not come from nothing so they had to have come from something, specifically, Someone, the only eternal Being, the primary Mover of all that exists or has ever existed.

I don't think there was ever a time when there was nothing.

Yes, there was always God.

I guess I just think that something includes more than just God and the word.

Why do you think that?

There are no scriptures that tell us "i the beginning God was completely alone with nothing around him"

Nor are there any scriptures that say that there was something around them. But John 1:1-5 gives us some very strong clues as to what (Who) came first and how the rest of it came into existence. "All things were made by him;" What does that tell you? It doesn't say some things, or most things, it says "All things". That would include anything else you might think was around them.

Edited August 24, 2012 by StephenVH

[SteveVH]

I am not a moderator.

That said, one of my pet peeves is people debating non-LDS doctrine on the LDS Gospel Discussion forum. Whatever Stephen believes, it has little or nothing to do with LDS gospel discussion. I have no authority to mandate anything, but for whatever my opinion may count (and I realize that may be nothing), I would prefer a debate over Catholic theology to take place somewhere else.

People are asking me to justify my comments. The only way I know to do that is to tell them what I believe. I don't believe there is one post of mine that is not tied to LDS theology. Personally I love to be challenged on my beliefs. I'm sorry you don't.

[Vort]

Personally I love to be challenged on my beliefs. I'm sorry you don't.

You ought perhaps not to make rash and foolish assumptions.

[Guest]

I am not a moderator.

That said, one of my pet peeves is people debating non-LDS doctrine on the LDS Gospel Discussion forum. Whatever Stephen believes, it has little or nothing to do with LDS gospel discussion. I have no authority to mandate anything, but for whatever my opinion may count (and I realize that may be nothing), I would prefer a debate over Catholic theology to take place somewhere else.

Interestingly, I was a member of the Catholic Answers Forum. I had several discussions with SteveVH where I expounded on my faith - the LDS doctrine - in a way that tries to bridge Catholic and LDS views... in the "Other Religions" section of the forum... and got banned. For proselyting.

[SteveVH]

So, the children, babies....all had rejected God? If by responding to HIS grace, you mean Christ....then again, I would ask, How does one Come unto Christ that has never heard of Christ. If God is just, how can salvation come to people in different ways?

I'll tell you what. Why don't you answer the questions you asked me? I have to agree that the discussion has come to center more on my faith than on yours. Why don't you give me the LDS perspective?

Wouldn't accepting Christ necessarily occur before Baptism? Does God judge those desires and then allow them to be baptized.....in the resurrection? If not, is baptism necessary?

Again, I would have to bring my beliefs into the picture in order to answer this adequately.

Yet, the story of Noah tells us HE does operate that way. No chance for all of those souls? No opportunity to have a mighty change of heart....just destruction....even the children.

And the LDS view of this situation is...?

Why? We didn't exist before God created us.....so why again, wouldn't HE just begin again. It seems that God has no problem with wiping out HIS creations if HE is not pleased with their choices. Sounds to me like the wiley ole devil got one over on God pretty easily.....far too easily if you ask me.

And the LDS view of this situation is...?

You did...but your answer is non sensical...respectfully.

Thanks for being so respectful.

Can Christ's atonement and the message of the Gospel change hearts and make bad men good? Can someone live a life of evil and wickedness and be changed and made clean by the Blood of Christ. Of course.

Agreed.

So again, how do those that never had the opportunity to have their heart changed and their desires turned to righteousness by Christ do so if they never heard of HIM or died without that Hope?

Great question. What is the LDS answer?

If God simply judges that they likely would have accepted Christ and changed their ways.....sounds like Christ wasn't all that necessary if God can just judge without Christ serving as an Advocate for each of us.

Either that or he would go to any length to save us. So what's your answer?

We believe that Christ satisfied the demands of justice and made mercy available to all who believe and obey.

So do I.

We further believe that all who live or ever lived will have the opportunity to hear about Christ even after they are departed from this mortal sojourn. All must Come unto Christ in the same way....faith in Him, repentance, baptism by immersion and the gift of the Holy Ghost. That is why we do baptisms vicariously for the dead. We believe that missionary work continues in the world of spirits. And of course we believe that we existed Eternally as Spirit children of God before we were born into mortality.

Thanks for the info.

[SteveVH]

Interestingly, I was a member of the Catholic Answers Forum. I had several discussions with SteveVH where I expounded on my faith - the LDS doctrine - in a way that tries to bridge Catholic and LDS views... in the "Other Religions" section of the forum... and got banned. For proselyting.

I think I remember you. Sorry you got banned. I hope you don't think I am proselytizing. That is not my intention whatsoever. I'm just not sure how to discuss theology without bringing my beliefs into the picture.

Anyway, God bless you.

[SteveVH]

You ought perhaps not to make rash and foolish assumptions.

Please forgive me.

[Traveler]

While I find your assertion that I am being dishonest extremely offensive, I will answer your question. I asked you where I said that Jesus was a fallen human being. You directed me to my Post #60. Nowhere in that post did I say that Jesus was a fallen human being, so I don't appreciate you twisting my words in order for you to form an argument. Just so we are clear. Jesus was like us in every way except sin. I have said this more than once in other posts on this thread and I think you know that.

I am not twisting your words - you are. 100% does not allow for any exception. Now you are making an exception. If Jesus is not like us in every way it is not true-full to say he is 100% like us. The scriptures tell us to put off our natural man (humanity) - not part of it, or some of it - but all of it and take upon us the divine nature (spirit) of G-d. And according to 1Corinthians 2:14.

You are mistaken. We are to put off our former way of life, our sinful ways, not our humanity. Granted, we rely on the Holy Spirit to renew us that we may put on the new self, but that is when we become truly human.

(Ephesians 4:22-24)

You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.

Our humanity is corruptible. Jesus was not and is not corruptible. Jesus is not 100% as we are. Why do you believe such a thing? As I said before - he has some similarities but that is quite different than 100%.

The Traveler