Not believing in the traditional Christ


Jonah
 Share

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Where the church institutional has behaved poorly is in relation to secular power. Lord Action was right--it corrupts. So, for Christianity writ large, or for a particular Christian organization to attempt to impose doctrinal purity by legal and political force is indeed anti-Christian. However, within denominations the error may be opposite--too much tolerance for heresy. My denomination was founded in 1914 and faced a theological crisis less than five-years later. It was referred to as The New Issue, but basically came down to a problem with the rise of modalism (Jesus = God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit--he appears in these roles or modes). We had no Statement of Fundamental Truths in those early years, but crafted one as a direct response. Nearly two-thirds of the wording for these 16 non-negotiable teachings was dedicated to defending the Trinity against modalism. We lost more than 1/4th of our congregations and members, and the division remains today, as Oneness Pentecostalism claims a small-but-significant segment of the Pentecostal world.

Boundary-enforcement and doctrinal purity moves inevitably lead to division and shrinkage. Methodism is facing the same today, over same-sex marriage. Ironically, in their case both liberals and conservatives seem to agree that the coming split is necessary.

Punishing heretics outside our denominations would be dangerous. Tolerating them within might be just as bad.

Thank you again - It is difficult for me to express what I learn about you and myself in our discussions.  I would love to deal directly someday with you and carefully dissect some critical thoughts and thinking.  But to begin - I would express a thought about divine institutions verses institutions of man.  In short - I am implying that a divine institution, especially concerning elements of understanding and utilizing the divine powers of G-d are in stark contrast to institutions of man.  But now I must be most careful and to explain; in that I would reference a very familiar principle purported by Isaiah.   That is the principle of line upon line upon line and precept upon precept upon precept.  Again the short answer is not the answer but the journey towards understanding.  Or as Jesus implied - have we arrived at understanding (as per Pharisee) or are we teachable (as per a child).

Often it is said that the devil is in the details.  That the divine things seem to be vague and ambiguous.  Again I find Isaiah a most interesting resource.  But there are some "things" about Isaiah that are important to understand (my view of our discussion)  That is that the divine revelations unfolded from the texts of Isaiah are not inspirations revealed through some ecumenical council or religious conference.  If you think I am making "fun" of the concept of very serious religious groups to determine or define things of G-d - that is exactly what I am doing.  Because to me that is by definition a institution of man.  Though it is close to G-d and his intent to involve his "children" and have them invested - there is something obviously missing.  But lets get back to Isaiah and his defining apostasy or what happens when man separates themselves from G-d.  What is the line upon line or should I say trend that Isaiah would show us.  He references three aspects which are: the Transgression of the Law, Changing the Ordinances and Breaking the Everlasting Covenant.

Using the example you provided above within Methodism - Obviously same-sex marriage is a "Changing of an Ordinance".   I purport that drilling down we can also understand the transgression of divine Law - but for now lets stick with the obvious changing of an ordinance.  The term to deal with such heresy is excommunication.  This does not mean kill or maim.  It does not mean the the taking of possessions.  It does not mean cut off or even dislike - it means to exclude from divine ordinances and covenants - nothing more nothing less.  I submit it does not mean to prevent from coming into a worship service.  It does not mean that book or pamphlets are published "against" them or in opposition to their thinking - It just means they are denied communion, sacraments or ordinances and has nothing to do with secular power but it does have to do with obeying divine law, preserving ordinances and keeping covenants.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/29/2019 at 10:43 PM, prisonchaplain said:

Native Americans had what is sometimes called general revelation--such as the Apostle Paul described in Romans 1. As a result they believed in a single God--the Creator. It may be that God will consider their knowledge and declare that Jesus' salvation is for them.

"It MAY be" doesn't cut it. So their situation MAY not be a serious error, back then. But what about today? The question still remains.

On 12/29/2019 at 10:43 PM, prisonchaplain said:

LDS have full access to 2000 years of Christian teaching, all the scriptures, and the leading of the Holy Spirit.

And so do native American Indians.

On 12/29/2019 at 10:43 PM, prisonchaplain said:

If traditional Christian teaching is correct, and the Latter-day revelations are wrong, and if the Holy Spirit gave drawings towards that traditional faith to members, yet they chose to hold to errors, then those errors would seem to be great indeed.

There are a lot of "if"'s in there. It depends on the invisible, intangible and unprovable. So, how are those serious errors. You follow what you believe to be true while denying that what everyone else believes is true. That's serious error because, the fact is and the truth is,  you nor anyone else knows for absolutely certain, provable certain, that what they believe about God is true. So how is it that YOU get to decide what is serious error for someone else? You, nor anyone in your religion, claims to be an eye witness. At best, you are relying on the opinions of others who read an age-old witness that is clouded in centuries of confusion and differences of opinion about what they meant. In fact, most of your witness comes from a church you all claim didn't have the truth, setting yourselves up to be the keepers of a truth provided by apostles who were never Protestants. They are not your witnesses. That means their interpretation is not theirs, it's yours. So, the serious error is you pushing your interpretation on us claiming that our interpretation is not only wrong, it's a serious error - ominous, but invalid.

We don't claim that your beliefs are a serious error. We don't claim that you believe in a different Jesus. We accept that if you want to go that route, then there is a problem with what we believe Jesus taught, but it's a serious error to claim that they are different people, a different Jesus.

On 12/29/2019 at 10:43 PM, prisonchaplain said:

Likewise, LDS teach that those who have known the Latter-day gospel, who have testified to having experienced the witness of the Holy Ghost to those truths, and who then leave the church and the faith--especially if they leave and become opponents of the truth they have known, then those errors would be grievous indeed.

Nope. Leaving the church has nothing to do with one's salvation, just like you, not believing as we do has nothing to do with your salvation and therefore, not an error at all. We could always be better in what we believe or what we do, but definitely not wrong or error (unless we totally reject Christ and everything about him and rebel in riotous ways. That would be wrong and serious error, but not unrecoverable), much less serious error. Those who leave the church simply do not have the support system of like-minded people. They often leave because they are no longer like-minded. Salvation depends on what one does, not what church a person goes to or what they are willing to believe is true.

To my knowledge, we don't teach that leaving the church is a serious error.

On 12/29/2019 at 10:43 PM, prisonchaplain said:

So, I guess my answer as to why the errors we are discussing would be serious is that we have so much revelation and we say we are led by the Spirit.

We say that, but that doesn't give anyone the right to accuse others who honestly believe they are following the Spirit and have much revelation of being in serious error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/30/2019 at 11:00 AM, Traveler said:

I do not consider @prisonchaplain to be a Traditional Christian.  I believe him to be a disciple of Christ that is defined more by the love of Christ than tradition and the reflections of traditions throughout history.  More than belief in any doctrine but because of honest love, I expect that when Christ comes, that he will say to @prisonchaplain - "Well done thou good and faithful servant."

I do not consider him to be "traditional" in the same sense as I do antagonists of our faith. I'm just questioning his statement that what we believe is in serious error. It is different from traditional Chrisitans, but I don't know how God can hold our feet to the fire when we don't agree to someone else's view of the same scriptures. Calling another's believes heretical is wrong. Calling a belief heretical may or may not be wrong but it should be done with the spirit of trying to gain an understanding without claiming that it's a serious error

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, brotherofJared said:

"It MAY be" doesn't cut it. So their situation MAY not be a serious error, back then. But what about today? The question still remains.

When scripture does not offer clear answers I'll state the biblical principal and offer how I perceive it MAY play out. It would be presumptuous for me to pretend to know the mind of God on this with certainty.

And so do native American Indians.

Perhaps a few do. Most have not had a good gospel witness, and many have been deterred by past bad actions of people doing their deeds in the name of God.

There are a lot of "if"'s in there. It depends on the invisible, intangible and unprovable. So, how are those serious errors. You follow what you believe to be true while denying that what everyone else believes is true. That's serious error because, the fact is and the truth is,  you nor anyone else knows for absolutely certain, provable certain, that what they believe about God is true. So how is it that YOU get to decide what is serious error for someone else? You, nor anyone in your religion, claims to be an eye witness. At best, you are relying on the opinions of others who read an age-old witness that is clouded in centuries of confusion and differences of opinion about what they meant. In fact, most of your witness comes from a church you all claim didn't have the truth, setting yourselves up to be the keepers of a truth provided by apostles who were never Protestants. They are not your witnesses. That means their interpretation is not theirs, it's yours. So, the serious error is you pushing your interpretation on us claiming that our interpretation is not only wrong, it's a serious error - ominous, but invalid.

There is tremendous agreement on basic doctrines between most Christian churches. My own church is a babe, yet our doctrine largely comports with Protestant and Catholic teachings. The confrontation of modalism I mentioned actually highlighted how orthodox we were, in that we refused to abandon centuries-old doctrine because a few voices claimed that God told them an ancient heresy was in fact the true understanding of God's nature.

Your contention relates to the doctrine of the Great Apostasy. Did dissensions and politics quickly corrupt the early church, or was God guiding those early leaders, allowing his key truths to survive throughout two millennia? Obviously we have different answers to that question.

We don't claim that your beliefs are a serious error. We don't claim that you believe in a different Jesus. We accept that if you want to go that route, then there is a problem with what we believe Jesus taught, but it's a serious error to claim that they are different people, a different Jesus.

I guess you're right. Getting the nature of God wrong is serious error imho. If the LDS Godhead is correct and the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are not united on some substantive level, then Trinitarian teaching is wrong and weird. On the other hand, if the Trinity is correct, then believing that the Father has a separate physical body from the Son would be wrong in more than a trifling way. I suspect we all want to understand God in spirit and in truth--so we pursue these conversations. We wish to help ourselves and each other. As for which side is most obnoxious in disagreeing, I'm not sure that would be a useful discussion--though I admit that some Evangelical 'heresy hunters' do themselves and my movement more harm than good.

Nope. Leaving the church has nothing to do with one's salvation, just like you, not believing as we do has nothing to do with your salvation and therefore, not an error at all. We could always be better in what we believe or what we do, but definitely not wrong or error (unless we totally reject Christ and everything about him and rebel in riotous ways. That would be wrong and serious error, but not unrecoverable), much less serious error. Those who leave the church simply do not have the support system of like-minded people. They often leave because they are no longer like-minded. Salvation depends on what one does, not what church a person goes to or what they are willing to believe is true.

To my knowledge, we don't teach that leaving the church is a serious error.

We say that, but that doesn't give anyone the right to accuse others who honestly believe they are following the Spirit and have much revelation of being in serious error.

Believing that there is one heavenly kingdom (albeit with varying rewards), and that there is a real hell drives us to urge people to follow Jesus. Like Paul, who told them Romans that there polytheistic devotion was understandable but wrong--and that they must worship the one God, we seek conversions. It's offensive to urge devout Jews to follow Jesus, but we do it. It's offensive to Muslims to declare that Jesus is God the Son, worthy of worship, but we do it. I could go on, but if God is real, if He is one, if He really loves us and wants communion with us, then of course we will go and make disciples of all nations. Not to do so would be serious error.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, brotherofJared said:

I'm just questioning his statement that what we believe is in serious error. It is different from traditional Chrisitans, but I don't know how God can hold our feet to the fire when we don't agree to someone else's view of the same scriptures. Calling another's believes heretical is wrong. Calling a belief heretical may or may not be wrong but it should be done with the spirit of trying to gain an understanding without claiming that it's a serious error

If I were LDS I would believe that the Trinity doctrine is a serious error. I would also, like @Traveler, consider the unwillingness of non-LDS to consider that God loves us so much He wants us to become what his is (exaltation) to be serious error. Perhaps a better way to frame the discussion is that the doctrine of God's nature and the potential of created humans to either become as God is or not are matters of great import.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

If I were LDS I would believe that the Trinity doctrine is a serious error. I would also, like @Traveler, consider the unwillingness of non-LDS to consider that God loves us so much He wants us to become what his is (exaltation) to be serious error. Perhaps a better way to frame the discussion is that the doctrine of God's nature and the potential of created humans to either become as God is or not are matters of great import.

As I've said many times, while Athanasian Christians and LDS Christians differ on the "how" 3 are 1, and it is important... honestly I find other difference in faith (like Armenian vs Calvinism) to be much larger and more impactful than this one.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

If I were LDS I would believe that the Trinity doctrine is a serious error.

I've been trying to get from you what you mean by serious error and you have yet to define what it is that you mean by that statement. All along here, I have been under the assumption that is a salvation stopper. And since you're not LDS, I really don't think you're qualified to see it from our point of view. It is not a Salvation stopper. Nothing in the scriptures even remotely suggests that if our alignment with this Trinity doctrine will have any effect on our salvation.

The idea that what we learn about God in this imperfect world would have some kind of eternal effect on our salvation is ludicrous. That, I believe, is the point person0 was trying to make. Salvation is about what we do with what we believe. It is about doing good and being good. We can learn all about the Godhead at any time in the future eternities. If I'm wrong, then I can be corrected by simply introducing me to the infinite and His Son. Presto bango, I would know. That's not something that occurs for most people in this life. What we believe here is based on faith and God never said that faith had to be perfect.

The fact that modern Christians feel they can make themselves judges of truth is a serious error on their part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

I would also, like @Traveler, consider the unwillingness of non-LDS to consider that God loves us so much He wants us to become what his is (exaltation) to be serious error. Perhaps a better way to frame the discussion is that the doctrine of God's nature and the potential of created humans to either become as God is or not are matters of great import.

Again, rejecting an idea based on what one believes should not be considered a serious error. All of us learn in our own time. If it is true and a person really wants to know the truth, they can find it. First, though, they need to realize that what they currently believe may not be true. That is something we need to leave to God and never judge the person to be in serious error because we don't know what God's plan is for them.

Learning the mysteries of God is not like math or other hard sciences. It is not provable though we can argue our beliefs until we are cold and buried in the grave these are simply things that we have to learn on our own and in our own way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

 

Ok. I'm not advocating that we shouldn't share our various beliefs, but taking the stance that we are right and everyone else is wrong such that it's so wrong that it's a serious error, a damning belief, then we have placed ourselves as an authority such that even God could not correct us. There are still mysteries that no religion can explain, no one, not even the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has all the truth or can answer every question.

My point is that no one has the right to preach or teach that anyone else's beliefs are a serious error. As such, we don't teach anything about what others belief, not that it's in error at all. What we do is teach what we believe and invite those who seek truth to ask God if it is true. I have no problem with the discussions, it is the judgment that the other person's ideas are a serious error that I have a problem with. I don't care if you think I'm wrong. Disagreement of what is correct is the substance of debate. Don't condemn me for what I believe is true, but do your best to show me my error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

If I were LDS I would believe that the Trinity doctrine is a serious error. I would also, like @Traveler, consider the unwillingness of non-LDS to consider that God loves us so much He wants us to become what his is (exaltation) to be serious error. Perhaps a better way to frame the discussion is that the doctrine of God's nature and the potential of created humans to either become as God is or not are matters of great import.

I have come to believe that there are 3 kinds of errors concerning doctrine - perhaps I should say 3 different kinds of categories.   The first I would catalog as what you have labeled as "a serious error".  This is an error in believing something that does not fit evidence.   It is so fantastic that there is no empirical or logic to the belief.  Examples are beliefs like frosty the snowman, the Easter bunny, superman, spiderman and such.   I do not understand why attachments to fantasies are so popular.  But it appears to me that making up stuff is a character or element of a lot of theology.  It seems, for some reason religious cultures love to dabble in magic and fantasy and things without empirical evidence and logic but then try to employ logic in an attempt to convince others of their fantastic belief.  The best example of this in the religious world, for me, is the Trinity doctrine.

The second category of error in belief is the misunderstanding of evidence.  This happens all the time and is the reason that theories come and go in the scientific community.  Usually this occurs when someone encounters some but not all of the evidence of stuff.  Since there are missing elements an attempt is made to "fill in the gaps" and create a workable theory.  But then once a theory is established everything is made to fit.  It is what I call the hammer belief system.  That is - that to a hammer everything looks like a nail that needs to be hammered.  I believe this to be one of the major faults of the "Pharisees" .  They believe the holy scriptures but use scripture to interpret that they will be saved despite their faults but others will be damned because of their faults even when the faults are uncannily similar.

The final doctrine error happens when the truth is evident and understood correctly - but it is applied incorrectly or to things that do not qualify.  Sometimes this is hard to tell the difference from the second type of error - but I give it because it is a category of its own.  An example is a guy that has a weakness for ladies and because a lady with makeup and a short skirt causes them to have unholy thoughts - they assume that every guy that encounters any lady with makeup and a short skirt must also have unholy thoughts.

Now that I have expressed these notions - I want to say something about many in the religious community.  It is what I call the traditional belief.  It is the idea that is expressed by someone when they say they were born a Democrat and they will never vote for a Republican.  Such an attachment causes the worse kind of errors in doctrine and there is no way, even for G-d, to work with such a person to open them to learn as Isaiah expressed - "line upon line upon line and precept upon precept upon precept."  

When it comes to religion - I believe I must be willing to consider and prove truth - not as a one and done thing but as a means to navigate in life.  Anytime I encounter evidence that does not fit my paradigm - I must realize that there is something I have missed or not understood correctly.  Often I will ask questions when I encounter ideas that do not fit - and when someone will not consider such I have a hard time believing that they have thought things through.

 

The Traveler

 

 

I believe it to be because of what I call as the attempt to put the glass slipper on one of the ugly stepsisters.  Anyway this is the error of misinterpretation.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

My point is that no one has the right to preach or teach that anyone else's beliefs are a serious error.

What if my belief is that serious error should be corrected, and that an incorrect understanding of God is a serious error?

7 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

I've been trying to get from you what you mean by serious error and you have yet to define what it is that you mean by that statement. All along here, I have been under the assumption that is a salvation stopper. And since you're not LDS, I really don't think you're qualified to see it from our point of view.

Maybe you should give up then. Since you're not Pentecostal and you're certainly not @prisonchaplain, maybe you're just not qualified to see it from his point of view.

Or maybe you should give PC some credit for fraternizing among us as long as he has and engaging in these discussions.

18 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

We don't claim that your beliefs are a serious error.

Sure we do.

18 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

Leaving the church has nothing to do with one's salvation

I don't think this position is defensible from the Latter-day Saint perspective.

7 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

Salvation is about what we do with what we believe.

This sounds like a variation of the "general revelation" argument.

7 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

We can learn all about the Godhead at any time in the future eternities. If I'm wrong, then I can be corrected by simply introducing me to the infinite and His Son. Presto bango, I would know.

Eternal Life is defined as knowing the only true God and His Christ. If this life is the only time to work our our salvation then waiting for the future eternities will reveal all about the Godhead and presto bango you'll be damned.

Additionally, if a person's beliefs about God are too far off, it will lead to some really awful acts performed in his name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

I've been trying to get from you what you mean by serious error and you have yet to define what it is that you mean by that statement. All along here, I have been under the assumption that is a salvation stopper. And since you're not LDS, I really don't think you're qualified to see it from our point of view. It is not a Salvation stopper. Nothing in the scriptures even remotely suggests that if our alignment with this Trinity doctrine will have any effect on our salvation.

I didn't get what you were driving at--especially your strong reaction to the phrase "serious error." I'd be hard pressed to name a salvation-stopper. No, I meant it in a simple and literal way. I should know who I am worshipping--especially if I believe I am led by that spirit. If I am wrong about the nature of the one I worship--especially if I did not have to be--that's an error. And, it's serious. The gravity should be obvious to us all, since it is a key matter that divides us. As to how misapprehending God impacts our salvation, I would go so far as to say I cannot give false comfort and say it doesn't matter or won't hinder one's pathway to heaven. Neither would I presume to deny entry to one who is sincere and gets the fine details wrong. So, yeah--getting the nature of God wrong is error--and it's serious. That's all I meant. I would not condemn a soul from a Protestant perspective, much less an LDS one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic
3 hours ago, Jonah said:

What do you mean by "the nature of God"?

Primarily the Trinity vs. the LDS Godhead vs. the modalism of Oneness Pentecostals -- at least that's been the focus of this string. Secondarily, did God truly make us his children--able to eventually exalt to godhood--to being as He is? Many Christians, myself included, believe that God is and will always be distinct--forever the one God. Some, like LDS, believe that God's love for us--his desire to commune with us--is so great that we, His children, can truly become what He is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Primarily the Trinity vs. the LDS Godhead vs. the modalism of Oneness Pentecostals -- at least that's been the focus of this string. Secondarily, did God truly make us his children--able to eventually exalt to godhood--to being as He is? Many Christians, myself included, believe that God is and will always be distinct--forever the one God. Some, like LDS, believe that God's love for us--his desire to commune with us--is so great that we, His children, can truly become what He is.

Can the "nature of God" include the doctrine that a man can become a God?

I think it was Joseph Smith who first made such a reference to the character of God in
the King Follett sermon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Jonah said:

Can the "nature of God" include the doctrine that a man can become a God?

I think it was Joseph Smith who first made such a reference to the character of God in
the King Follett sermon.

This is a very in-depth conversation.  I'll To try to give a short version answer here, it’s going to be VERY imperfect.  There’s a LOT of depth to go into here. 

Official Creedal Cristian theology:

You and God are different species* of creatures (*for want of a better word).   God has existed forever, if perfect, and is defined as God due to the species He is.  You are a different species, less than a century old, and will forever be inferior to God.  The end.

Official LDS Cristian theology:

God the Father is literally the father of your spirit.  You are the same type of being He is. You obviously make mistakes and sin, and hence are lesser than God.  God is perfect in all of His actions, knowledge, motivations etc.  Through the atonement of Jesus Christ, you can ultimately become as clean and perfect and like the Father.  This is called exaltation, and is taught throughout scripture and modern revelations.  Good resources on this:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-47-exaltation?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/becoming-like-god?lang=eng

 

Now onto speculative** LDS ideas---

**Again, for want of a better word.  We LDS Christians readily acknowledge that there is much about God and His kingdom / wonders we don’t know right now (see Article of Faith #9).  The topic of any of the Father’s past is in the bucket of stuff we don’t know much if anything about.  The King Follet discourse does exist, but actually focused on man’s potential and it’s never been canonized as “thus saith the Lord”.  Yes, LDS Christians do have a process of canonization and emphasizing things through time, it’s not “oh one leader said something, that makes it automatically Thus Saith the Lord”.  The King Follet Discourse, while interesting, lacks this canonization or repeated emphasis, hence my placing it in this zone. 

Anyway: to actually talk about the discord: it essentially boils down to speculating that if we can become like the Father, then perhaps this may of worked in reserve before- that the Father maybe once was a child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jonah said:

Can the "nature of God" include the doctrine that a man can become a God?

I think it was Joseph Smith who first made such a reference to the character of God in
the King Follett sermon.

Yes, in that if we can become what God is then God is no longer exclusively God. Alternatively, if God is also continuing to become more (thus we will never 'catch up'), then He is not all-powerful-knowing-presence now. LDS might argue that of exaltation is not possible then God is not who they understand Him to be either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/10/2020 at 2:17 PM, prisonchaplain said:

Yes, in that if we can become what God is then God is no longer exclusively God. Alternatively, if God is also continuing to become more (thus we will never 'catch up'), then He is not all-powerful-knowing-presence now. LDS might argue that of exaltation is not possible then God is not who they understand Him to be either.

There are two very strong references in scripture that support such a parallel relationship of similarity (same species) between G-d and man.  The first is in Genesis where we learn that man is created in the "image" and "likeness" of G-d.  Though I am not an expert in ancient Hebrew I have talked to a number of Jewish Rabbis that agree that in the ancient Hebrew that this is an indication that man was created to be like (modeled after - similar to father to son) G-d, even to the extent of being an exact indistinguishable replica.  Another, perhaps more modern concept is that we are DNA clones of G-d.

The second indication comes from the Gospel of John - the idea that we are intended to be "one" with G-d.  Note that when Jesus initially said that he was one with the Father how much it upset the Pharisees (experts in scripture and self appointed experts in the nature of G-d) who realized that to be one with G-d one must be g-d - thus the Pharisees accused Jesus-  being a man makes himself G-d.  John later takes this one step closer to reality when in John 17 we are reminded that Jesus prayed that because of his atoning sacrifice; his disciples become one in the exact same way as he is with the Father.

What bothers me the most about the arguments of "Traditional" Christians concerning this unique understanding of conventional rebirth of the spirit of fallen man to be redeemed; is that in arguing against becoming sanctified, pure and G-dly - that we cannot actually become like G-d - that they employ in essence the same arguments of the Pharisees when they denounced Jesus - which BTW was their rationalization for having Jesus crucified - and gives meaning to being crucified with him. 

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Traveler said:

What bothers me the most about the arguments of "Traditional" Christians concerning this unique understanding of conventional rebirth of the spirit of fallen man to be redeemed; is that in arguing against becoming sanctified, pure and G-dly - that we cannot actually become like G-d - that they employ in essence the same arguments of the Pharisees when they denounced Jesus - which BTW was their rationalization for having Jesus crucified - and gives meaning to being crucified with him. 

If you believe the Pharisees wanted to kill Jesus because he taught humans could become Gods, would
you provide scripture(s) to lend support.

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many members of our church reference Mr Lewis. Some even joke about him being the "13th apostle." He is indeed a very intelligent man, which intelligence, I am nearly sure, came to him as a gift from God to aid him in the work he would do in life. 

With such high opinions of the man, I decided to read his books. 

And he really is a highly intelligent and well spoken apologist. I agree with nearly everything he says. But to me, his books always fall appart when he starts talking about the nature of God. In Mere Christianity, a book where he mainly used scriptural references and real life models to explain and prove claims of Christianity, he instead tends to use more often confusing metaphors and impossible analogies when it came to explaining the nature of the tribunal god. To me, it felt like his fount of intelligence stopped gushing at full force, and he needed to supplement it with earthly reasoning.

More jarring than that, was whenever he would attempt to explain God's motives. In each of his books, he presents a somewhat different theory. Mere Christianity does come closest to the principle of exaltation, but the book still describes a very alien god with incomprehensible intentions.

These books have taught me one monumental truth: I am very, very grateful to have received the doctrine of the pre-mortal life. When one understands this doctrine, they understand that God is a Man, and Jesus, the Son of Man. We are his literal offspring, not in some metaphorical creator-creation way. Though the light and glory of God are more than any man can handle, and though his methods and ways remain high and mysterious, the core of his intentions are easily understood, as they were in that world. 

If I may speak boldly, the knowledge of a pre-Earth life and the proto-discipleship that we continue in this life is the kingpin that holds together any Christian's understanding of who and what the Eternal Father and Jehovah are. Without it, mainstream Christianity is utterly aimless when it comes to comprehending these mysteries.. Though aimless, they are blessed to have witnessed the acts and kindness of Jesus Christ during his mortality, and this has served them throughout the millennia to help them understand the true nature of God despite the heresies that would pop up later (namely, Gnosticism)

I hope that last bit doesn't hurt anyone's feelings, but it is genuinely how I feel at this given time.

Edited by Moonbeast32
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Jonah said:

If you believe the Pharisees wanted to kill Jesus because he taught humans could become Gods, would
you provide scripture(s) to lend support.

Cheers

John Chapter 10

Quote

30 I and my Father are one.

31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,

It is important to note the sequence.  #1 Jesus says that he and the Father are one (there is a lot that can be said of this but lets move one because the extra stuff was not your question)

#2.  The Jews intended to kill Jesus by stoning - again there is more here but note that they intended to kill Jesus already - the answer to your question is coming.

#3.  Jesus answers and asked if they intend to kill him because of the good things he is doing

#4  The Jews say it has nothing to do with his works but because he is teaching that a man (specifically him) can be made into a G-d.  Now the table is set.

#5 - this is very important --  The answer to your question is in verses 34 and 35 - Jesus answers them by saying that the scriptures clearly teach that men become g-ds - and Jesus adds that the scriptures cannot lie or teach something false.  Jesus says a few other things in following verses about himself being the Son of G-d (which also is not directly pointed to your question).

What I find so very interesting about the Gospel of John is that John covers the "arguments" between the Jews (Pharisees) in the same format that many of the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are given as prophetic types and shadows with those that alter, change and do not believe as Jesus taught - as in this example; that men can becomes G-ds.  Of course there are other scriptures (teaching man is intended to be "one" with G-d) but for now it is important to note that at the time of Jesus - to say or present the idea of being "one" with G-d meant to become a g-d.  There is always an evolution in thinking or interpreting doctrine taught in scripture - but what do you think the scripture means to be "one" with G-d.  Do you use the meaning that was understood when Jesus taught or has your understanding evolved to something very different?

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/13/2020 at 5:34 PM, Moonbeast32 said:

Many members of our church reference Mr Lewis. Some even joke about him being the "13th apostle." He is indeed a very intelligent man, which intelligence, I am nearly sure, came to him as a gift from God to aid him in the work he would do in life. 

With such high opinions of the man, I decided to read his books. 

And he really is a highly intelligent and well spoken apologist. I agree with nearly everything he says. But to me, his books always fall appart when he starts talking about the nature of God. In Mere Christianity, a book where he mainly used scriptural references and real life models to explain and prove claims of Christianity, he instead tends to use more often confusing metaphors and impossible analogies when it came to explaining the nature of the tribunal god. To me, it felt like his fount of intelligence stopped gushing at full force, and he needed to supplement it with earthly reasoning.

More jarring than that, was whenever he would attempt to explain God's motives. In each of his books, he presents a somewhat different theory. Mere Christianity does come closest to the principle of exaltation, but the book still describes a very alien god with incomprehensible intentions.

These books have taught me one monumental truth: I am very, very grateful to have received the doctrine of the pre-mortal life. When one understands this doctrine, they understand that God is a Man, and Jesus, the Son of Man. We are his literal offspring, not in some metaphorical creator-creation way. Though the light and glory of God are more than any man can handle, and though his methods and ways remain high and mysterious, the core of his intentions are easily understood, as they were in that world. 

If I may speak boldly, the knowledge of a pre-Earth life and the proto-discipleship that we continue in this life is the kingpin that holds together any Christian's understanding of who and what the Eternal Father and Jehovah are. Without it, mainstream Christianity is utterly aimless when it comes to comprehending these mysteries.. Though aimless, they are blessed to have witnessed the acts and kindness of Jesus Christ during his mortality, and this has served them throughout the millennia to help them understand the true nature of God despite the heresies that would pop up later (namely, Gnosticism)

I hope that last bit doesn't hurt anyone's feelings, but it is genuinely how I feel at this given time.

If one is to believe that G-d is just, merciful, compassionate and not a respecter of persons - then not only must they believe in something after death - but also they must believe that there is something before the mortal experience.  Obviously we are not born equal - the only way that such can be mitigated in light of the believed in the divine nature of G-d is that there is a reason we are all born to different circumstance over which G-d could not himself in truth justly control in the same way he does not control us now and force us into whatever is prepared for us as an individual after we die.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2020 at 5:01 PM, Traveler said:

John Chapter 10

It is important to note the sequence.  #1 Jesus says that he and the Father are one (there is a lot that can be said of this but lets move one because the extra stuff was not your question)

#2.  The Jews intended to kill Jesus by stoning - again there is more here but note that they intended to kill Jesus already - the answer to your question is coming.

#3.  Jesus answers and asked if they intend to kill him because of the good things he is doing

#4  The Jews say it has nothing to do with his works but because he is teaching that a man (specifically him) can be made into a G-d.  Now the table is set.

#5 - this is very important --  The answer to your question is in verses 34 and 35 - Jesus answers them by saying that the scriptures clearly teach that men become g-ds - and Jesus adds that the scriptures cannot lie or teach something false.  Jesus says a few other things in following verses about himself being the Son of G-d (which also is not directly pointed to your question).

What I find so very interesting about the Gospel of John is that John covers the "arguments" between the Jews (Pharisees) in the same format that many of the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are given as prophetic types and shadows with those that alter, change and do not believe as Jesus taught - as in this example; that men can becomes G-ds.  Of course there are other scriptures (teaching man is intended to be "one" with G-d) but for now it is important to note that at the time of Jesus - to say or present the idea of being "one" with G-d meant to become a g-d.  There is always an evolution in thinking or interpreting doctrine taught in scripture - but what do you think the scripture means to be "one" with G-d.  Do you use the meaning that was understood when Jesus taught or has your understanding evolved to something very different?

 

The Traveler

I don't see people becoming gods in John 10:34-35.   Do you believe "Ye are gods" is the same thing as
"Ye will become gods"?

I could not give a good explanation myself for being one with God, but I found
 https://www.ministrysamples.org/excerpts/BECOMING-ONE-WITH-GOD.HTML

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Jonah said:

I don't see people becoming gods in John 10:34-35.   Do you believe "Ye are gods" is the same thing as
"Ye will become gods"?

I could not give a good explanation myself for being one with God, but I found
 https://www.ministrysamples.org/excerpts/BECOMING-ONE-WITH-GOD.HTML

Cheers

Wait a minute. I must be mistaken here. I was just sure this forum was called "LDS Gospel Discussion", and not "Showing Latter-day Saints How Their Doctrine Doesn't Agree with Your Biblical Interpretation."

Oh, hold on. Lookee there.

image.png.a32703136f98704ddd3c52103e1e147b.png 

Huh. I was right after all.

 

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jonah said:

I don't see people becoming gods in John 10:34-35.   Do you believe "Ye are gods" is the same thing as
"Ye will become gods"?

I could not give a good explanation myself for being one with God, but I found
 https://www.ministrysamples.org/excerpts/BECOMING-ONE-WITH-GOD.HTML

Cheers

This focuses on comparing a person and their house as being one... ah, that's not how LDS Christians see things.  I'm not one with my house- my house is an inanimate object.  Rather, I one with my husband: my literal physical husband, and my metaphorical husband Christ the Lord.  I strive to make His ways my ways, His thoughts my thoughts, His goodness my goodness.  And He empowers me to do so, even though it's only to a small degree right now.  

How about instead we turn to scripture--

John 17, emphasis mine--

9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

13 And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.

14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.

16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.

19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

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