Mormonism [Archive] - TheologyWeb Campus

kiwimac

March 15th 2003, 12:32 AM

Gavin,

Anyway, you asked for a specific verse, so here is just one: Moroni 8:14 says that all people that believe in paedo-baptism are destined for hell

Gavin, like all of these things the verses need to be read in context. Let me help

Moroni 8: 4 (RLDS version) And now my son I speak unto you concerning that which grieveth me exceedingly; for it grieveth me that there should disputations rise among you.

5 For if I have learned the truth, there have been disputations among you concerning the baptism of your little children.

6 And now my son, I desire that ye should labor diligently, that this gross error should be removed from among you; for, for this intent I have written this epistle.

7 For immediately after I had learned these things of you, I inquired of the Lord concerning the matter.

8 And the word of the Lord came to me by the power of the Holy Ghost, saying, Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord, and your God.

9 Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me.

10 And after this manner did the Holy Ghost manifest the word of God unto me; wherefore my beloved son, I know that it is solemn mockery before God, that ye should baptize little children.

11 Behold I say unto you, that this thing shall ye teach, repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children: and their little children need no repentance, neither baptism.

12 Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins.

13 But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism.

14 Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell.

15 Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism, is in the gall of bitterness, and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell.

16 For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism.

17 Wo be unto him that shall pervert the ways of the Lord after this manner, for they shall perish, except they repent.

18 Behold, I speak with boldness, having authority from God; and I fear not what man can do; for perfect love casteth out all fear; and I am filled with charity, which is everlasting love; wherefore all children are alike unto me; wherefore I love little children with a perfect love; and they are all alike, and partakers of salvation.

19 For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.

20 Little children can not repent; wherefore it is awful wickedness to deny the pure mercies of God unto them, for they are all alive in him because of his mercy.

21 And he that saith that little children need baptism, denieth the mercies of Christ, and setteth at naught the atonement of him and the power of his redemption.

22 Wo unto such, for they are in danger of death, hell, and an endless torment.

23 I speak it boldly, God hath commanded me.

24 Listen unto them and give heed, or they stand against you at the judgment seat of Christ.

25 For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law.

Or from the slightly more modern language "Restored Covenant Edition"

4 "And now my son, I speak unto you concerning
that which grieveth me exceedingly;
For it grieveth me that there should
disputations rise among you;

5 For if I have learned the truth, there have been
disputations among you concerning
the baptizing of your little children.

6 "And now my son, I desire that ye should labor
exceedingly that this gross error
should be removed from among you;
For, for this intent I have written this epistle.

7 "For immediately after I had learned these things of you,
I inquired of the Lord concerning the matter;

8 And the word of the Lord came to me by the power
of the Holy Ghost, saying:
'Listen to the words of Christ your Redeemer,
your Lord and your God;

9 Behold, I came into the world, not to call the righteous,
but sinners to repentance;
The whole need no physician, but they that are sick;
Wherefore, little children are whole,
for they are not capable of committing sin;
Wherefore, the curse of Adam is taken from them in Me,
that it hath no power over them;
And the law of circumcision is done away in Me.'

10 "And after this manner did the Holy Ghost
manifest the word of God unto me;
Wherefore, my beloved son, I know that it is
solemn mockery before God that ye
should baptize little children.

11 "Behold, I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach:
Repentance and baptism unto they which are
accountable and capable of committing sin;
Yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized
and humble themselves as their little children,
And they shall all be saved with their little children;
And their little children need no repentance,
neither baptism.

12 "Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling
the commandments unto the remission of sins;

13 But little children are alive in Christ,
even from the foundation of the world;
If not so, God is a partial God, and also a
changeable Being and a respecter to persons;
For how many little children have died without baptism?

14 Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without
baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell.

15 "Behold, I say unto you that he that supposeth that
little children needeth baptism is in the gall
of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity,
For he hath neither faith, hope nor charity;
Wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought,
he must go down to hell;

16 For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God
saveth one child because of baptism and the other
must perish because he hath no baptism;

17 Wo be unto him that shall pervert the ways
of the Lord after this manner!
For they shall perish, except they repent!

18 "Behold, I speak with boldness,
having authority from God;
For I fear not what man can do;
For perfect love casteth out all fear;
And I am filled with charity, which is everlasting love;
Wherefore, all children are alike unto me;
Wherefore, I love little children with a perfect love;
And they are all alike and partakers of salvation;

19 For I know that God is not a partial God,
neither a changeable Being,
But He is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.

20 "Little children cannot repent;
Wherefore, it is awful wickedness to deny
the pure mercies of God unto them,
For they are all alive in Him because of His mercy;

21 And He that saith that little children needeth baptism
denieth the mercies of Christ and setteth at naught the
atonement of Him and the power of His redemption;

22 Wo unto such! for they are in danger of death,
hell and an endless torment;

The Book of Mormon teaches that Children are not partakers in original sin, that is, they are, until they are old enough (generally 8 or so) to be able to know right from wrong, free from the effects of sin.

This is hardly a unique position and is much the same as a number of churches teach, especially the Orthodox Churches which have never accepted the doctrine of Original Sin.

So what is being taught here is that Children don't need to be baptised for sin's forgiveness, they live in Christ until they reach the age of accountability.

Those under the "curse" in Moroni are not simply believers in paedo-baptism but those who conceive of children as sinful, ie, being tained by original sin. As an example of what I mean, most Anglican Churches baptise small children but not because they are sinners, they baptise them as a rite of welcome!

The BoM would have no problem with that, the problem is when we decide that even those who cannot have made a decision can sin. (This, BTW, says nothing of our common fate, that of death.)

Kiwimac

Alden

March 15th 2003, 06:27 AM

I came to this thread a bit late, but....

There are a many things that I have always found interesting about Smith and Mormonism.

Things like:

Smith was a member of a protestant denomination after his supposed revelation that they were an abomination.

Introduction of many Mason-like elements into temple ritual, coincidenatally, after smith became a mason.

Use of a seer-stone

Etc

Hitch

March 15th 2003, 11:45 AM

And add that Mormonism is an antichrist cult preaching 'another Jesus' , polytheistic and racist...but those secret handshakes... like the goodbook says, a special grip covers a multitude of sins..

H

Dave

March 15th 2003, 05:04 PM

and seem to have confirmed in this post, is that LDS theology is almost reactionary in nature. It's like they look at some mainstream belief (like Original Sin, which IS believed by all Orthodox), completely misunderstand it, and then create their own beliefs to deal with their incorrect assumptions.

For instance, "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression." is the 2nd belief in their 'Articles of Faith'. The problem here is their basic understanding of what constitutes original sin. They seem to think that infants are born with sin upon them. I don't know why, but that seems to be the belief. The truth of the matter is that Original Sin is called thus b/c it refers to the effect of Adam's sin (the Original). And that effect is that all of us are born with a predisposition to sin. We are born inherently selfish, greedy, etc. Does this mean babies have sinned? Of course not! It does mean that if there is a tendency, it will be to sin.

And for all the times I've been told that 'even though prophet (name) said such-and-such, it was only their opinion', I just would like to respond: 14 Fundamentals in Following the Prophet

A speech by Ezra Taft Benson on February 26, 1980, 5 years before he became prophet/president of the LDS church.

okay, I just tried pasting it and it sent the total characters to 21,000. Therefore I'll post the parts I found relevant.

"Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

President Wilford Woodruff stated: "I say to Israel, The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of the Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God." (The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, selected by G. Homer Durham [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1946], pp. 212-213.)

President Marion G. Romney tells of this incident, which happened to him:

I remember years ago when I was a Bishop I had President [Heber J.] Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting I drove him home....Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: "My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it." Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, "But you don't need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray." [In Conference Report, October 1), p. 78]

Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

Sometimes there are those who feel their earthly knowledge on a certain subject is superior to the heavenly knowledge which God gives to His prophet on the same subject. They feel the prophet must have the same earthly credentials or training which they have had before they will accept anything the prophet has to say that might contradict their earthly schooling. How much earthly schooling did Joseph Smith have? Yet he gave revelations on all kinds of subjects. We haven't yet had a prophet who earned a doctorate in any subject, but as someone said, "A prophet may not have his Ph.D. but he certainly has his LDS." We encourage earthly knowledge in many areas, but remember, if there is ever a conflict between earthly knowledge and the words of the prophet, you stand with the prophet, and you'll be blessed and time will vindicate you.

Sixth: The prophet does not have to say "Thus saith the Lord" to give us scripture.

Sometimes there are those who haggle over words. They might say the prophet gave us counsel, but that we are not obligated to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet Joseph, "Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you" (D&C 21:4).

And speaking of taking counsel from the prophet, in D&C 108:1, the Lord states: "Verily thus saith the Lord unto you, my servant Lyman: Your sins are forgiven you, because you have obeyed my voice in coming up hither this morning to receive counsel of him whom I have appointed".

Said Brigham Young, "I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture" (Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot], 13:95)."

With that in mind, I present this doctrine (yes doctrine) as taught by Young.
From Brigham Young Addresses, Ms d 1234, Box 48, folder 3, dated Feb. 5, 1852, located in the LDS Church Historical Department, Salt Lake City, Utah)
http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/sermons_talks_interviews/brigham1852feb5_priesthoodandblacks.htm

"We know there is a portion of inhabitants of the earth who dwell in Asia that are negroes, and said to be jews. The blood of Judah has not only mingled almost with all nations, but also with the blood of Cain, and they have mingled there seeds together; These negro Jewes may keep up all the outer ordinenances of the jewish releigeon, they may have there sacrifices, and they may perform all the releigeous seremonies any people on earth could perform, but let me tell you, that the day they consented to mingle their seed with Cannan, the preisthood was taken away from Judah, and that portion of Judahs seed will never get any rule, or blessings of the preisthood until Cain gets it. Let this Church which is called the kingdom of God on the earth; we will sommons the first presidency, the twelve, the high counsel, the Bishoprick, and all the elders of Isreal, suppose we summons them to apear here, and here declare that it is right to mingle our seed, with the black race of Cain, that they shall come in with with us and be pertakers with us of all the blessings God has given to us. On that very day, and hour we should do so, the preisthood is taken from this Church and kingdom and God leaves us to our fate. The moment we consent to mingle with the seed of Cain the Church must go to desstruction, -- we should receive the curse which has been placed upon the seed of Cain, and never more be numbered with the children of Adam who are heirs to the priesthood untill that curse be removed."

So according to Brigham Young, who did not need to say 'Thus, saith the Lord' in order for his words to be doctrine, the LDS Church had lost the power of the priesthood in 1979 (or whatever year that was when the prophet/quorum of the 12 decided to give black men the priesthood).

Hm. Not bad for my 2nd post. :yipee:

Hitch

March 15th 2003, 05:17 PM

GrandPa Lee is rolling over in his grave,,,Dave..

Good work.

H

Dave

March 15th 2003, 05:30 PM

Today @ 09:17 PM
Hitch:

GrandPa Lee is rolling over in his grave,,,Dave..

Good work.

H

I appreciate that. :smile:
Who is GranPa Lee? :huh:

Hitch

March 15th 2003, 06:13 PM

Mountain Meadows.

Dave

March 15th 2003, 06:43 PM

Today @ 10:13 PM
Hitch:

Mountain Meadows.

oh, you mean the massacre of california-bound settlers by indians and LDS dressed up as indians that was ordered by President Young himself?

Hitch

March 15th 2003, 07:00 PM

JD Lee was the commander and scapegoat.

Mormonism, Mama & Me

This work by a decendent of Lee has some interesting insights.

Jin-Roh

March 15th 2003, 11:53 PM

Here's a little something copied from a journal of Mormon back in 1857. * (http://www.mtn-meadows-assoc.com/Depo%20and%20Journals/Dimick/Dimick-2.htm)

p.7 .... They would kill all of them. But the Indians might run off but God would feel after them they had got to fight them when the Lord wanted them to fight & they would not then be a fraid of them. I told them how the Gentiles had treated the Indians in times past & said he would think of it.

p. 10 whare we found one hundred & twenty lodges & about one thousand men, women and children. We met Bishop C. West from Ogden with 4 waggon loads of corn & mellons for the Indians. We gave them 4 beef cattle & stayed all night & never saw so good a spirit before. I told them that the Lord had come out of his hiding place & they had to commence their work. I gave them all the beef cattle & horses that was on the road to Calafornia, the North rout, that they must put them...

p. I I .... into the mountains & not kill any thing as long as they could help it, but when they do kill, take the old ones & not kill the cows or young ones. They said it was some thing new. They wanted to council & think of it. Ben Simons, a Delaware Indian was thare. I told him all a bout the Book of Mormon & he said his father had told him about the same thing that they would have to rise up & fight but he did .......

All this copied from Microfilm.

It does seem to be that the Mormans played a big part in the Mountian Meadows massacre....

kiwimac

March 16th 2003, 01:07 AM

Dave,

In fact most members of the Eastern Orthodox / Russian Orthodox do not accept the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin. If you look at my post, you will see that I said I was not addressing the doctrine that Adam brought death into the world, rather I was addressing the doctrine, held by a number of protestant / Catholic denominations that all humans are inherently evil from birth.

Kiwimac

Jin-Roh

March 16th 2003, 04:18 AM

In fact most members of the Eastern Orthodox / Russian Orthodox do not accept the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin.

Truth is never determined by consensus, and just becuase they call themselves "orthodox" does not mean they are literally "correct."

spl_cadet

March 16th 2003, 01:29 PM

Yesterday @ 09:07 PM
kiwimac:

Dave,

In fact most members of the Eastern Orthodox / Russian Orthodox do not accept the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin. If you look at my post, you will see that I said I was not addressing the doctrine that Adam brought death into the world, rather I was addressing the doctrine, held by a number of protestant / Catholic denominations that all humans are inherently evil from birth.

That's not what the doctrine states however. It simply states that we have a propensity to sin due to the Original Sin by Adam.

kiwimac

March 16th 2003, 03:37 PM

Spl_Cadet,

Augustine believed that humans were evil from birth because the process of procreation involved sinning, ie SEX. In this he was letting slip his background in Manichaeism, which despised the body as altogether evil.

Moreover he considered the loss of control in orgasm also a sign of sinfulness (gee, he must have been some fun!)

Kiwimac

Dave

March 16th 2003, 03:44 PM

Today @ 05:29 PM
spl_cadet:

That's not what the doctrine states however. It simply states that we have a propensity to sin due to the Original Sin by Adam.

I never said humans were evil or born evil. Merely that humans have a tendency to sin.

And to Jin-Roh
If I remember correctly it was the pelagians who accused Augustine and the CC of being Manichean on the nature of evil. But the Manichean theory and Original Sin are only superficially similar. And to reject Augustine here (as you say the Orthodox do) would make no sense as he is their ECF too. Never mind the fact that Augustine quotes from 11 greek and latin fathers (Contra Jul., II, x, 33).

Peace,
Dave

Jin-Roh

March 17th 2003, 03:13 AM

Today @ 11:44 AM
Dave:

And to Jin-Roh
If I remember correctly it was the pelagians who accused Augustine and the CC of being Manichean on the nature of evil. But the Manichean theory and Original Sin are only superficially similar. And to reject Augustine here (as you say the Orthodox do) would make no sense as he is their ECF too. Never mind the fact that Augustine quotes from 11 greek and latin fathers (Contra Jul., II, x, 33).

I wasn't trying to so much reject augustine as I was trying to explain that just because a large group of people feel a certain way that it doesn't mean that a specific doctrine is true.

This however is a tangent. The matter at hand is mormonism, we should probably stick with that.

Bill the Cat

March 21st 2003, 11:26 AM

I posted a challenge on another thread about the Suffering servant text and it was ignored.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=128&perpage=15&pagenumber=4

This clearly shows the foundational error of polytheism as described by Joseph Smith and the Mormon church.

Bill the Cat

March 25th 2003, 01:17 PM

looks like it's gonna be ignored here too...

:no: :no: :bonk: :bonk: :argh: :argh:

HemofHisGarment

March 28th 2003, 02:06 AM

~evil venoumous antichrist cultic tactics & claims exposed~
WORD GAMES

~never, ever bid Mormons well? Wow, that is harsh!!!

Even if they are 'misled' it is only because the belief system is self-perpatuated.... by believers of a religion like any other; that it may have been started by dishonesty is of no fault to the modern day Latter-day Saint.

Kevin W. Graham

March 28th 2003, 02:54 AM

(This may be a dumb move, but here goes)

Hello, I'm Kevin. I'm new to this discussion forum. I'm a Latter-day Saint who was invited by JP a few weeks ago. I hope that I might have the opportunity to discuss a theological issue or two - time permitting. Anyway, thought I'd introduce myself.

Kevin

(running to the bomb shelter)

Bill the Cat

March 28th 2003, 10:44 AM

Welcome Kevin. Any friend of JP's is OK in my book. We discuss theology here among fellow believers, not personal vindictiveness,.... well, maybe a little against Farrell's bunch.

Bill the Cat

March 28th 2003, 12:12 PM

sorry, wrong thread :yipee:

Kevin W. Graham

March 28th 2003, 12:20 PM

Linda made a few comments about Matthew Slick's web list of Mormon beliefs.

== All of the things listed are absolutely LDS doctrine.

This is simply false.

== They are taught all throughout the LDS church worldwide. Many of them are not taught until you are "worthy" in a sense. That may be one reason why they are not so "common" even among LDS members.

While this is perhaps true for some doctrines, we must keep in mind that the same goes for the NT Christians. "Milk before meat" as Paul would put it. Indeed, there is no reason to believe the Bible contains much of the meat referenced therein. On the whole, I think the LDS faith does an excelelnt job teaching its doctrines to prospective converts. I am a former Southern Baptist, and I recall that there was hardly 1 in 10 who would even pretend to understand the paradox of the Trinity.

Having said that, most of the doctrines are at least touched upon in the missionary discussions. I've heard some ex-Mormon claim that they never knew about preexistence or the doctrine of divine embodiment until after they joined. For this there is simply no excuse. Having served a mission myself, I know that at times, people can doze off during some of the discussions, but all of this is covered for sure.

Usually the stuff that people "find out" later on that causes them to leave, has nothing or little to do with LDS doctrine. Mountain meadows Massacre, Joseph Smith shooting two men before being murdered, his money digging expeditions, Adam-God, etc.

== But I can assure you that they are indeed LDS doctrine.

No, you can make no such assurance. Junia pointed out one example. While the rest may technically be LDS teachings, the spin put on them by our critics rarely are. Anyway, I'll comment on a few more statements.

== Wow, Brigham Young a blithering idiot!! Funny that all other "prophets" claim authority through him.

Actually, no prophet claims authority through anyone but Jesus Christ.

== Mormons really don't like the Tanners. They throw the anti-mormon tag on anyone who exposes their practices.

That is a rather unfair caricature. JP Holding disagrees with our faith too, but I don't consider him anti-Mormon. And how often are we tagged "cult" for disagreeing with traditional Christainity? The Tanners are considered unscholarly and unprofessional by those who are neither LDS or unprofessional. In fact, Lawrence Foster, Professor of American history at GA Tech, had this to say:

"Until they are prepared to abide by accepted standards of scholarly behavior and common courtesy, they can expect little sympathy from serious historians," and "the Tanners' own work falls short of history." Foster also stated, "The Tanners have repeatedly assumed a holier-than-thou stance, refusing to be fair in applying the same debate standard of absolute rectitude which they demand of Mormonism to their own actions, writings, and beliefs." Foster gives the Tanners credit for publishing old LDS documents, "but criticizes them for using unauthorized materials which have been acquired leaving much to be desired, ethically speaking." The Tanners often publish "scholarly works of living individuals without their permission, because the end (destroying Mormonism) justifies the means." Foster continues, "The Tanners seem to be playing a skillful shell game in which the premises for judgement are conveniently shifted so that the conclusion is always the same--negative."

Foster also quoted another Tanner critic who said:

"Jerald and Sandra Tanner have read widely enough in the sources of LDS history to provide that [larger] perspective, but they do not. Although the most conscientious and honest researcher can overlook pertinent sources of information, the repeated omissions of evidence by the Tanners suggest an intentional avoidance of sources that modify or refute their caustic interpretation of Mormon history"

== I've noticed somethign about the anti-Tanner e-mails the Tanners Get no one ever points out where they are wrong. Makes you kind of wonder doesn't it.

Someone has been very sheltered. The Tanners have been rebuked on many occasions on many issues. A good portion of their mantra, however, is pure sensationalism as LDS history is either exploited or taken out of context.

== What Mormons believe today and what LDS prophets and apostles taught decades ago are two entirely different things.

Bad finger-painting.

== I'm curious to know why you are so defensive of a religion you personally don't hold to?

Because Junia is a good person who sees misrepresentation and bad polemics when she sees it. Even when it comes from someone on her own side of the fence.

== God the Father having sexual intercourse was one of the doctrines taught.

No it wasn't. And you're surprised that such blatant misrepresentation would cause a knee-jerk reaction?

== oh, you mean the massacre of california-bound settlers by indians and LDS dressed up as indians that was ordered by President Young himself?

It takes a wild leap and a complete abandoment of reason to conclude that Brigham Young "ordered" it. He explicitly ordered them not to harm any of them, but the letter came too late. No historian will deny this, no matter how biased. All they can do is concoct reasons to downplay its significance.

== It does seem to be that the Mormans played a big part in the Mountian Meadows massacre....

Reading strictly Tannerized material, I could see why you'd come to that conclusion. But the fact still remains, Brigham Young told them to let them be. The fact that a handful of LDS were involved is indisputable. But I fail to see why this causes so much grief among Evangelicals. After all, contrary to popular opinion, the greatest massacre during the 19th century took place at a little place called Sand Creek. There, Colonel John Chivington, who was a Methodist minister who had once done missionary work with the Indians, led an illegal assault against more than 200 indians of which the majority were women and children. http://www.lastoftheindependents.com/chivington.html

Of course this receives only a fraction of the attention as MMM. Who needs to read the horrors of the real "Christian" past when you can divert all your attention to those evil Mormons. Why have one standard when you can have two, eh? Unlike MMM, this one killed twice as many people and killed all the women and children, and was indisputably led by an Evangelical minister.

Bill the Cat

March 28th 2003, 01:07 PM

I said
== Wow, Brigham Young a blithering idiot!! Funny that all other "prophets" claim authority through him.

You said
Actually, no prophet claims authority through anyone but Jesus Christ.

D&C 28: 2, 7; 43: 3-6

2 But, behold, verily, verily, I say unto thee, no one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in this church excepting my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., for he receiveth them even as Moses.

7 For I have given him the keys of the mysteries, and the revelations which are sealed, until I shall appoint unto them another in his stead.

3 And this ye shall know assuredly—that there is none other appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations until he be taken, if he abide in me.

4 But verily, verily, I say unto you, that none else shall be appointed unto this gift except it be through him; for if it be taken from him he shall not have power except to appoint another in his stead.

** In the last part it says EXCEPT IT BE THROUGH HIM!! Talking of Joseph Smith. He would appoint the next prophet and head of the church. It continues like that. Authority is passed from prophet to prophet. If the chain is broken, the succession breaks.

Kevin W. Graham

March 28th 2003, 01:44 PM

Thanks for proving my point BIll. However you would have been well served to understand LDS scripture first, before leaping to conclusions like these. The context demonstrates that this is Jesus speaking, not Joseph Smith. In D&C 43 you cite only verses 3-4, but it is clear this is God speaking. Verse 12 "appoint ye my servant Joseph Smith" and verse 34 says clearly "Behold, I am Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world." http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/43

Like I said, Joseph Smith himself is not the authority. Neither is Brigham Young. Jesus Christ alone is the authority and He chooses and ordains those to work in His name through His authority. The keys of the priesthood are passed along, this is true. But this doesn't negate the fact that Christ is the source from which they came.

Bill the Cat

March 28th 2003, 02:14 PM

I said:
Mormons really don't like the Tanners. They throw the anti-mormon tag on anyone who exposes their practices.

You said:
That is a rather unfair caricature. JP Holding disagrees with our faith too, but I don't consider him anti-Mormon.

But FARMS must. See JP's response to The Mormon Defenders critique by FARMS where he is called an ANTI-MORMON
http://www.tektonics.org/funnyfarm.html

Bill the Cat

March 28th 2003, 02:20 PM

Today @ 12:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47071#post47071)
Kevin W. Graham:

Thanks for proving my point BIll. However you would have been well served to understand LDS scripture first, before leaping to conclusions like these. The context demonstrates that this is Jesus speaking, not Joseph Smith. In D&C 43 you cite only verses 3-4, but it is clear this is God speaking. Verse 12 "appoint ye my servant Joseph Smith" and verse 34 says clearly "Behold, I am Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world." http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/43

Like I said, Joseph Smith himself is not the authority. Neither is Brigham Young. Jesus Christ alone is the authority and He chooses and ordains those to work in His name through His authority. The keys of the priesthood are passed along, this is true. But this doesn't negate the fact that Christ is the source from which they came.

Well, the real intent was not to prove any point, just to show that the prophethood flowed through J.S.
But verily, verily, I say unto you, that none else shall be appointed unto this gift except it be through him;
And as far as Christ being the source, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I am by no means an anti-mormon becaust in itself the moniker implies hatred. I don't hate you one bit. Matter of fact, if I'm ever in Fla, I'd love to have coffe with you and JP :jade: ....oh, sorry :teeth:

Kevin W. Graham

March 28th 2003, 02:46 PM

== But FARMS must.

Not necessarily. Russell McGregor doesn't represent FARMS in any way. FARMS accepts volunteered essays and publishes them accordingly. But they only represent that author's opinion, not FARMS itself. I believe FARMS makes this clear in one of their statements. Having said that, "anti-Mormon" doesn't require hatred at all. It simply requires that one be against the LDS faith. So in that sense, JP could be called anti-Mormon, but I choose not to do so because I have a more strict definition. Those who protest outside the construction of LDS tenples and such, I would call anti-Mormon.

Anti-Mormons like Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson make a stink about the title, but they feel free to turn around and call those who disagree with Christainity as "anti-Christian." They think that by anti-Mormon, we mean anti-Mormon people. But this is not so. We know fully well that it is LDS theology to which they are opposed.

Personally, I wouldn't care if someone called me anti-abortion, anti-democrat or even anti-Baptist. So long as they understood that it is not the people I'm against, but rather their practice or ideology.

BTW, McGregor's review encouraged me to do a review of my own. JP's book will be receiving far more attention -as deserved - than what was offered by McGregor. I've put together 5 other individuals, including myself, to wrote responses to JP's arguments. The inrtoduction is already online here if interested: http://www.anti-mormonism-revealed.com/mdintro.htm

== I don't hate you one bit. Matter of fact, if I'm ever in Fla, I'd love to have coffe with you and JP

This is good to hear. Where are you from, if you don't mind my asking? I've never had coffee of course - although I love its aroma - but I've had Olive Garden and Sweet Tomatoes with JP.

Bill the Cat

March 28th 2003, 03:14 PM

From Va, but born in Orlando

Bill the Cat

March 28th 2003, 05:18 PM

Just read your review of TMD, and I must say you were very even handed. I am impressed. I read things like Barry Bickmore and Jeff Lindsay and see either the "circle the wagons" apolgia or mud slinging. I saw neither in your tone. No wonder JP considers you a friend. :thumb:

jpholding

March 28th 2003, 05:31 PM

Yo Bill and Kevin,

For what it's worth I'm more perturbed that one of FTill's monkeys (you know who I mean) used McGregor's critique as some kind of justification for his own purposes. McGregor is out of his league and I can forgive him, but Till's monkeys are out to destroy faith in others and that I find unforgivable. If I fault McGregor at all, it's for unwittingly giving comfort to a mutual enemy.

Yo Kev dewd, when you're in Miami, watch out for drive-by coconut throws.

I'll add in here as I did in the other forum that ya'll should give Kevin a little latitude if he gets rambunctious. His bark is worse than his bite, if he gets mean on you he's just pretending to be his own Jack Russell terrier. If he gets too out of control call me in, I have the dart gun filled with LDSedative. :smile:

Gotta give ya a hard time, don't I? :bonk: :brow:

Bill the Cat

March 28th 2003, 05:45 PM

JP, did you know that Sauron was also a pterodactyl on XMen that hypnotizes people??? DON'T LOOK IN THE EYES!!!! :eek: :eek:

bar Jonah

March 28th 2003, 06:04 PM

Today @ 10:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47071#post47071)
Kevin W. Graham:
Like I said, Joseph Smith himself is not the authority. Neither is Brigham Young. Jesus Christ alone is the authority and He chooses and ordains those to work in His name through His authority. The keys of the priesthood are passed along, this is true. But this doesn't negate the fact that Christ is the source from which they came.
So, God chose and ordained a man to be His prophet... a man who would go forth and preach that Adam is God the Father and should be worshipped? That Negroes should NEVER attain the priesthood, and that if it ever happened, the Church of Latter Day Saints would, itself, be apostate? A man who preached that beings live on the Moon and the Sun? A man who preached that some people's sin is so great that Christ's sacrifice cannot attone for it? A man who preached that no one can enter the celestial kingdom without the consent of Joseph Smith?

------------------------------

ALL OF BRIGHAM YOUNG'S SERMONS ARE "SCRIPTURE"

"I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good a scripture."
-- Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 95; also see vol. 13, p. 264

ADAM IS GOD THE FATHER:

Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken -- HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do.
-- A Sermon Delivered By President Brigham Young, In The Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, April 9, 1852. (Journal of Discourses 1:50-51)

TEACHINGS ABOUT BLACKS:

"No person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood"
-- Brigham Young

...the first presidency, the twelve, the high counsel, the Bishopric, and all elders of Israel, suppose we summon them to appear here, and here declare that it is right to mingle our seed, with the black race of Cain, that they shall come in with us and be partakers with us of all the blessings God has given to us. On that very day, and from the hour we should do so, the priesthood is taken from this Church and Kingdom, and God leaves us to our fate. The moment we consent to mingle with the seed of Cain, the Church must go to destruction, -- we should receive the curse which has been placed upon the seed of Cain, and never more be numbered with the children of Adam who are heirs to the Priesthood until that curse be removed.
-- Brigham Young Addresses, Feb 5, 1852, Ms d 1234, Bos 488, Folder 3, L.D.S. Archives

[Utah should have the right to introduce slavery]
It is not the prerogative of the President of the United States to meddle with this matter, and Congress is not allowed, according to the [p.40] Constitution, to legislate upon it. If Utah was admitted into the Union as a sovereign State, and we chose to introduce slavery here, it is not their business to meddle with it; and even if we treated our slaves in an oppressive manner, it is still none of their business and they ought not to meddle with it.
-- Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 4:39-40 (Aug 31, 1856)

PRESIDENT OF L.D.S. CHURCH HOLDS KEYS OF SALVATION FOR ALL LIVING

No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith. From the day that the Priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding up scene of all things, every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are.
-- Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 289

The President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints holds the keys of salvation for all men now living because he is the only one by whose authorization the sealing power of the priesthood can be used to seal men up to salvation and exaltation in the kingdom of God.
-- Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. Mc Conkie, P. 411

GOD DID NOT CREATE MAN

All the fools and learned and wise men from the beginning of creation, who say that the spirit of man had a beginning, prove that it must have an end; and if that doctrine is true, then the doctrine of annihilation would be true. But if I am right, I might with tops that God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself.

Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age, and there is no creation about it. All the minds and spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement.
-- Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith by Joseph Fielding Smith, p.354

HemofHisGarment

March 28th 2003, 08:43 PM

Yesterday @ 10:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47293#post47293)
RightIdea:

All the fools and learned and wise men from the beginning of creation, who say that the spirit of man had a beginning, prove that it must have an end; and if that doctrine is true, then the doctrine of annihilation would be true. But if I am right, I might with tops that God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself.

Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age, and there is no creation about it. All the minds and spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement.
-- Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith by Joseph Fielding Smith, p.354

I can't help but to lean towards this theology because it is so logical...that God organized and designed us & the world from matter and intelligence which was already in existence as we are eternal in nature.

New to the forum - AO

bar Jonah

March 29th 2003, 12:47 PM

Yesterday @ 05:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47398#post47398)
HemofHisGarment:
I can't help but to lean towards this theology because it is so logical...that God organized and designed us & the world from matter and intelligence which was already in existence as we are eternal in nature.

New to the forum - AO
Then how do you explain that the book of Moses, another supposed book of Mormon scripture, says:

[i]And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and it was so… -- Moses 2:26a

HemofHisGarment

March 30th 2003, 04:26 PM

Yesterday @ 10:47 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47814#post47814)
RightIdea:

Then how do you explain that the book of Moses, another supposed book of Mormon scripture, says:

[i]And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and it was so… -- Moses 2:26a

Are you referring to the words..."from the beginning"? I would not be able to explain that. Anyway, I am not so sure about LDS scripture...just stating my own personal ideas which have been influenced by the church's theology.

Dave

March 30th 2003, 08:21 PM

03-28-2003 @ 07:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47398#post47398)
HemofHisGarment:

I can't help but to lean towards this theology because it is so logical...that God organized and designed us & the world from matter and intelligence which was already in existence as we are eternal in nature.

New to the forum - AO

the fault I find with this is the limitation that is placed upon God. LDS theology is effectively saying God is not God. Rather, he is just a powerful being (read 'exalted') that can shape play-dough. And if that's the case then this powerful being isn't worth being worshipped. Not to mention the fact that he was one time a sinful human.
That anyone would want to worship such a creature is beyond me. And that is why if LDS theology is right I'll probably end up in outer darkness. No way I'll worship a sinful human/made god.

Peace,
Dave

Bill the Cat

March 30th 2003, 08:40 PM

I tried to have a discussion with a mormon friend of mine and make a logical equation for him...

I asked him if there was a time when God (elohim to him) did not exist. He said no. I asked him where we were before we were born, he said in heaven as Spirit children. I asked him where we were before that, he said we didn't exist. Aha!!
I asked him if God (elohim) was a man like us on another planet before He became a god, he said yes.
I asked him where was elohim before he was born, he said in heaven with his father. AHA!!!
I asked where elohim was before he was born as a spirit child to heavenly grandpa, his response.....

I haven't learned that much yet. :argh: :argh: :bonk: :bonk:

Another thing that bothers me... Can women become gods? If so, why is heavenly mother never mentioned when mormons talk about gods? The y always say they believe in 3 gods, so where's H.M.?

HemofHisGarment

March 30th 2003, 08:46 PM

Today @ 06:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48834#post48834)
Dave:

...LDS theology is effectively saying God is not God. Rather, he is just a powerful being (read 'exalted') that can shape play-dough. And if that's the case then this powerful being isn't worth being worshipped. Not to mention the fact that he was one time a sinful human. That anyone would want to worship such a creature is beyond me...

A once sinful creature turned powerful exalted being who is capable of shaping the elements of the universe is still far greater than you or I, and a being we are not worthy enough to worship anyway...besides who really knows the origins of God...it's all still just theology...what really matters is that Christians including Mormons can agree that Christ is the central point.

.

Bill the Cat

March 30th 2003, 09:06 PM

Well, assuming we refer to the same Christ. If I say I am 5'8 caucasian male born in Florida to my 2 parents and you say I am 6'4 polynesian male born in a petry dish, we are not describing the same person. Mormons describe a Jesus who is not eternal, who's brother is Lucifer, who has not been God, etc. We do not describe the same person.

HemofHisGarment

March 30th 2003, 09:13 PM

Today @ 07:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48862#post48862)
Bill the Cat:

... Mormons describe a Jesus who is not eternal, who's brother is Lucifer, who has not been God, etc. We do not describe the same person.

That is simply false, typical anti-Mormon propaganda. Mormons believe in the same biblical Christ that other Christians believe in.

.

Bill the Cat

March 30th 2003, 09:25 PM

and your source is??? I can pull all the quotes from LDS authorities and off the LDS web site as well!! Your "anti-mormon" statement is also patently untrue. To break down the word:

dictionary.com lists:
anti: Opposed to; against.
mormon: A member of the Mormon Church. Also called Latter-day Saint.

I am against no member, just their ideas about God. I can love sonmeone and not like their politics or religious ideas... Hey, I go thru Thanksgiving and Christmas family get togethers too.:rofl:

Dave

March 30th 2003, 10:55 PM

Today @ 07:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48849#post48849)
HemofHisGarment:

A once sinful creature turned powerful exalted being who is capable of shaping the elements of the universe is still far greater than you or I, and a being we are not worthy enough to worship anyway...besides who really knows the origins of God...it's all still just theology...what really matters is that Christians including Mormons can agree that Christ is the central point.

.

far more powerful than you or I, yes. But so is Satan. And various groups may say Christ is the central point, but if one's teaching of Christ is different from another's; then one is wrong.

HemofHisGarment

March 30th 2003, 11:02 PM

Today @ 08:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48939#post48939)
Dave:

...various groups may say Christ is the central point, but if one's teaching of Christ is different from another's; then one is wrong.

So since each one has different teachings, then each one is wrong as a whole...right? This is essentially how Joseph Smith started the LDS faith, by contrasting this problem with a "new" & unconventional religion...it had to stand out from the rest in order to gain any followers, similar to other religions which sprouted up around his time also.

.

Xmansmommy

March 30th 2003, 11:17 PM

Today @ 08:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48866#post48866)
HemofHisGarment:

That is simply false, typical anti-Mormon propaganda. Mormons believe in the same biblical Christ that other Christians believe in.

.

Hem, from experience I can say that is not simply anti-Mormon propaganda. You see, I used to be LDS. What brought me out of Mormonism, is the challenge that a Christian gave to me to compare what the LDS church teaches about the Deity of Christ with what the bible teaches. I believed exactly like you do, that I worshipped the same Jesus of the bible that Christians did. As I began my study to prove this sister wrong, I found differences between what the scriptures taught and what the LDS church taught. There certainly is a great struggle when you realize that your theology isn't compatable with the word of God. I chose to believe the word of God. Perhaps I'll condense my testimony and share it here on this thread if anyone is interested. Because they teach some of the same things about Jesus, does not mean that they believe the same things about the Lord Jesus Christ. Thanks for allowing me to share.

For and By Him,
Linda

HemofHisGarment

March 30th 2003, 11:28 PM

Today @ 09:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48955#post48955)
Xmansmommy:

...Perhaps I'll condense my testimony and share it here on this thread if anyone is interested. Because they teach some of the same things about Jesus, does not mean that they believe the same things about the Lord Jesus Christ. Thanks for allowing me to share.

Linda~
Would be very interested! And just an FYI - I am still on the LDS books, but have serious concerns. I just wanted you to know that my worship is not taking place within a church at this time, and my theology is open - that's why I am here. I just still feel that it is wrong to down the church; it is about as wrong as any other church in my current view...

.

Bill the Cat

March 30th 2003, 11:35 PM

I would like to also point you guys to the strangite web site here:

http://www.strangite.org/Welcome.htm

where a good quote says:
Joseph Smith Jr. appointed James J. Strang to be his successor with a document that survives at Yale University. Scholars have determined that it has an authentic postmark “Nauvoo, June 19, 1844” on an envelope addressed in the same hand as the whole document. The envelope is block-printed in a style strikingly similar to that occasionally used by Hyrum Smith’s scribe, but is probably in the rare printing of Joseph Smith Jr. himself. The text of the document matches the language, style, and passion of Joseph Smith Jr. The document is published with the Revelations of James J. Strang.

And on the welcome page:
We support the Prophet Joseph’s written revelation appointing a successor named James Strang on June 18, 1844, just nine days before the Prophet Joseph was killed. The Prophet James was ordained to that sole office by angels the same hour that Joseph was killed, and with witnesses later found brass records buried in a Wisconsin hill. The closest associates to the Prophet Joseph were numbered with us, including his wife, his mother, his only surviving brother and his sisters, three of his apostles, the bishop of the whole church, the Nauvoo stake president, and the Book of Mormon witnesses. The Prophet James was martyred in 1856 and our members have become few in number as prophesied in the scriptures. After Brigham Young argued that the Prophet Joseph would not have a successor, a large group of apostates elected Brigham as their president anyway in 1847.

Dave

March 30th 2003, 11:38 PM

Today @ 10:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48943#post48943)
HemofHisGarment:

So since each one has different teachings, then each one is wrong as a whole...right? This is essentially how Joseph Smith started the LDS faith, by contrasting this problem with a "new" & unconventional religion...it had to stand out from the rest in order to gain any followers, similar to other religions which sprouted up around his time also.

.

that is something I did not say. I said if 2 groups teach different things about Christ then one of them is wrong.

HemofHisGarment

March 30th 2003, 11:42 PM

Today @ 09:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48963#post48963)
Bill the Cat:

I would like to also point you guys to the strangite web site here:

http://www.strangite.org/Welcome.htm

where a good quote says:

Yeah, I have seen their website; I find that extremely interesting, and just another reason why I hold the LDS church in question- mostly for historical reasons.

.

HemofHisGarment

March 30th 2003, 11:44 PM

Today @ 08:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48939#post48939)
Dave:

"And various groups may say Christ is the central point, but if one's teaching of Christ is different from another's; then one is wrong.

Okay. I just wonder if trying to find what is wrong about another's belief system is really accomplishing a whole lot. Wouldn't it be more effective to find common ground?

.

Bill the Cat

March 30th 2003, 11:44 PM

edited my post to add a fact I missed

bar Jonah

March 31st 2003, 02:55 AM

Today @ 01:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48650#post48650)
HemofHisGarment:
Are you referring to the words..."from the beginning"? I would not be able to explain that. Anyway, I am not so sure about LDS scripture...just stating my own personal ideas which have been influenced by the church's theology.
Supposedly, God didn't make man, according to the quote I gave earlier from Joseph Smith. But this quote says God did make man. Which is it?

bar Jonah

March 31st 2003, 03:00 AM

And Linda, I think it would be positively great if you would share your testimony! Please do, sister.

Hitch

March 31st 2003, 03:01 AM

A once sinful creature turned powerful exalted being who is capable of shaping the elements of the universe is still far greater than you or I, and a being we are not worthy enough to worship anyway...besides who really knows the origins of God...it's all still just theology...what really matters is that Christians including Mormons can agree that Christ is the central point.

Polythieism and christianity have nothing in common.

Hitch

Hitch

March 31st 2003, 03:06 AM

Today @ 03:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48971#post48971)
HemofHisGarment:

Okay. I just wonder if trying to find what is wrong about another's belief system is really accomplishing a whole lot. Wouldn't it be more effective to find common ground?

. '

No.

Mormonism is a satanic lie that hides behind 'christian' terms.

.
Titus 1:11-14
11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.
12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
(KJV)

Even this the question you posted reflects the father of lies because it is well known the Joey taught that all the sects and their creeds were an abomination.

But is a great sales technique. The elder at the door can change 180 degrees in a heartbeat, swinging form the 'only true church 'to a 'part of christianity', depending on the reactions of the customer. And every time he does it the Accountant keeps track.

And the truth is there is no second chance. When death arrives the Judge has sent him and nothing but eternity lies ahead.

take care

Hitch

HemofHisGarment

March 31st 2003, 09:15 AM

Right Idea:
"God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all..."

Looks like J.S. is referring to the actual creation of spirit - the eternal element - versus the physical creation of Adam.

Hitch:
"...there is no second chance"

I can see your concern for the "unsaved"; but honestly these missionaries and members are only doing and saying what they believe is right and true - even if they are mistaken; God knows the heart.

.

Kevin W. Graham

March 31st 2003, 12:08 PM

Ok, I'll try to catch up on some posts.

== Hem, from experience I can say that is not simply anti-Mormon propaganda. You see, I used to be LDS.

It is entirely anti-Mormon propaganda, and your status as ex-LDS means very little given your already misinformed synopsis of the LDS faith. You see, I used to be anti-Mormon Baptist too. I know the techniques.

== What brought me out of Mormonism, is the challenge that a Christian gave to me to compare what the LDS church teaches about the Deity of Christ with what the bible teaches.

Nobody denies that the LDS faith teaches that Christ is not a being in Trinitarian unity with the Father. The anti-Mormon propaganda comes into play when they try telling us that we are talking about an entirely different historical figure altogether.

== I believed exactly like you do, that I worshipped the same Jesus of the bible that Christians did.

Now you're trying to slide in "Christians" in with the "biblical" as if your interpretation of Christ is synonymous with the Bible's. Of course we have no doubt that you have your interpretation of the bible and we have ours. Evangelicals have the bad habit of assuming theirs is "biblical" hands down. But doesn't every self-professing Christian claim the same exact thing? The LDS the JW the SDA etc, we all believe our theological concept of Christ is "biblical." You're not going to prove your interpretation true and ours false simply by reasserting orthodoxy which is bound by creedal straightjackets.

== As I began my study to prove this sister wrong, I found differences between what the scriptures taught and what the LDS church taught.

No you didn't. You proved her wrong in that her interpretation conflicted with yours. The LDS Jesus does not conflict with the Bible at all. Somewhere along the lines somebody slapped a Trinitarian lens on your eyes and that developed your conclusions. Which is fine, but not everyone comes from thet theological paradigm of scriptural interpretation. LDS don't, and neither did the NT Christians or earliest Church fathers. This is why it took several centuries to devlop this doctrine. There simply wasn't enough scriptural material to work with. They banged their heads together over councils and yapped Greek philosophical jargon back and forth until they devised a way to solve the dilemma. But even the most Trinitarian scholars won't deny the fact that the full development of the Trinity didn't come from the scriptures themselves, but rather, the Catholic pronouncements or interpretations of what they though the scriptures taught.

== There certainly is a great struggle when you realize that your theology isn't compatable with the word of God.

You're dreaming again. You're simply conforming to the majority rule in today's Christian society. A phenomenon not too uncommon among ex- anythings.

== I chose to believe the word of God.

You chose a particular interpretation of the Word of God. Nothing more.

Hitch states: "Polythieism and christianity have nothing in common"

Define polytheism? I think you're going to be terribly dissapointed.

== Mormonism is a satanic lie that hides behind 'christian' terms

How lovely. This is interesting given my recent review of Holding's chapter 7. I argue that it is the opposite in some cases. For instance the doctrine of deification was taught in the Bible and in the church fathers. Both use the term "gods". LDS use the term "gods." But Evangelicals are forced to use less "alarming" terms like theosis, becoming "like" gods, become "holy" etc. I don't doubt that we both use the same terms differently, but the fallacy of your presentation is that you automatically think your application is "Christian." ANother example is the biblical/LDS term GODHEAD and the "Christian" term "Trinity."

Evangelicals think they've cornered the market for the term "Christian" at every turn, when they can't even define what the term means outside their own Evangelical theological dictionaries. Head-spinning circular reasoning at work here.

Bill: == I am against no member, just their ideas about God.

Mormon is also an "adjective." I am a Mormon, but I'm also Mormon. If you are against anything Mormon (theology, attitude, teachings, etc), then technically you can be called anti-Mormon just like anti-Christians are against teh concept of Christainity, not Christians themselves. Another interesting factoid is that the term anti-Mormon was used by anti-Mormons themselves as they gave themselves that label back in the 19th century.

== I tried to have a discussion with a mormon friend of mine and make a logical equation for him...

This is what I don't understand. You guys can't explain the Trinity without sweeping it under the "mystery of God" excuse, yet we are suppose to offer every detail as to what God did, who he was with, where WE were, what we were doing etc, prior to this existence on earth. Let me turn teh question around as I have done so before. What did God do for the zillions of zillions of years prior to treh creation of the universe and his children? The usual Christian response is, "we don't know."

EXACTLY!

And why should you have to know the answer to that question? Why is this answer good enough for you but not us?

== Can women become gods?

Goddesses.

== the y always say they believe in 3 gods..

We do?

Dave: == LDS theology is effectively saying God is not God. Rather, he is just a powerful being (read 'exalted') that can shape play-dough. And if that's the case then this powerful being isn't worth being worshipped.

Then I would say that is your problem, not ours. We are not bound by the endless philosophical definitions of God as has been branded into modern Christian thought. Meaning, if he can't create ex nihilo then he shouldn't be worshipped. What a wrong-headed approach that is. According to Evangelicals, they only believe what the Bible says, but nowhere does the Bible say God created ex nihilo.

== Not to mention the fact that he was one time a sinful human.

This is false. That is not LDS doctrine.

HemofHisGarment

March 31st 2003, 08:57 PM

Today @ 10:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49426#post49426)
Kevin W. Graham:

...that is not simply anti-Mormon propaganda...It is entirely anti-Mormon propaganda...I know the techniques...The anti-Mormon propaganda comes into play when they try telling us that we are talking about an entirely different historical figure altogether...

Appreciate the response, but please don't make the mistake that I have attempted to create a synopsis of anything on this site. I also have not claimed to be ex-Mormon. You may have me confused with another member of the site. I still have my name on the books, but I do not attend as I am involved in a personal challenge of searching for answers. So far I have found that none of the answers are in a box; as a matter of fact the more I research the further away from the "box" I get!

.

Dave

March 31st 2003, 09:01 PM

Today @ 11:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49426#post49426)
Kevin W. Graham:

Ok, I'll try to catch up on some posts.

== Hem, from experience I can say that is not simply anti-Mormon propaganda. You see, I used to be LDS.

It is entirely anti-Mormon propaganda, and your status as ex-LDS means very little given your already misinformed synopsis of the LDS faith. You see, I used to be anti-Mormon Baptist too. I know the techniques.

== What brought me out of Mormonism, is the challenge that a Christian gave to me to compare what the LDS church teaches about the Deity of Christ with what the bible teaches.

Nobody denies that the LDS faith teaches that Christ is not a being in Trinitarian unity with the Father. The anti-Mormon propaganda comes into play when they try telling us that we are talking about an entirely different historical figure altogether.

== I believed exactly like you do, that I worshipped the same Jesus of the bible that Christians did.

Now you're trying to slide in "Christians" in with the "biblical" as if your interpretation of Christ is synonymous with the Bible's. Of course we have no doubt that you have your interpretation of the bible and we have ours. Evangelicals have the bad habit of assuming theirs is "biblical" hands down. But doesn't every self-professing Christian claim the same exact thing? The LDS the JW the SDA etc, we all believe our theological concept of Christ is "biblical." You're not going to prove your interpretation true and ours false simply by reasserting orthodoxy which is bound by creedal straightjackets.

== As I began my study to prove this sister wrong, I found differences between what the scriptures taught and what the LDS church taught.

No you didn't. You proved her wrong in that her interpretation conflicted with yours. The LDS Jesus does not conflict with the Bible at all. Somewhere along the lines somebody slapped a Trinitarian lens on your eyes and that developed your conclusions. Which is fine, but not everyone comes from thet theological paradigm of scriptural interpretation. LDS don't, and neither did the NT Christians or earliest Church fathers. This is why it took several centuries to devlop this doctrine. There simply wasn't enough scriptural material to work with. They banged their heads together over councils and yapped Greek philosophical jargon back and forth until they devised a way to solve the dilemma. But even the most Trinitarian scholars won't deny the fact that the full development of the Trinity didn't come from the scriptures themselves, but rather, the Catholic pronouncements or interpretations of what they though the scriptures taught.

== There certainly is a great struggle when you realize that your theology isn't compatable with the word of God.

You're dreaming again. You're simply conforming to the majority rule in today's Christian society. A phenomenon not too uncommon among ex- anythings.

== I chose to believe the word of God.

You chose a particular interpretation of the Word of God. Nothing more.

Hitch states: "Polythieism and christianity have nothing in common"

Define polytheism? I think you're going to be terribly dissapointed.

== Mormonism is a satanic lie that hides behind 'christian' terms

How lovely. This is interesting given my recent review of Holding's chapter 7. I argue that it is the opposite in some cases. For instance the doctrine of deification was taught in the Bible and in the church fathers. Both use the term "gods". LDS use the term "gods." But Evangelicals are forced to use less "alarming" terms like theosis, becoming "like" gods, become "holy" etc. I don't doubt that we both use the same terms differently, but the fallacy of your presentation is that you automatically think your application is "Christian." ANother example is the biblical/LDS term GODHEAD and the "Christian" term "Trinity."

Evangelicals think they've cornered the market for the term "Christian" at every turn, when they can't even define what the term means outside their own Evangelical theological dictionaries. Head-spinning circular reasoning at work here.

Bill: == I am against no member, just their ideas about God.

Mormon is also an "adjective." I am a Mormon, but I'm also Mormon. If you are against anything Mormon (theology, attitude, teachings, etc), then technically you can be called anti-Mormon just like anti-Christians are against teh concept of Christainity, not Christians themselves. Another interesting factoid is that the term anti-Mormon was used by anti-Mormons themselves as they gave themselves that label back in the 19th century.

== I tried to have a discussion with a mormon friend of mine and make a logical equation for him...

This is what I don't understand. You guys can't explain the Trinity without sweeping it under the "mystery of God" excuse, yet we are suppose to offer every detail as to what God did, who he was with, where WE were, what we were doing etc, prior to this existence on earth. Let me turn teh question around as I have done so before. What did God do for the zillions of zillions of years prior to treh creation of the universe and his children? The usual Christian response is, "we don't know."

EXACTLY!

And why should you have to know the answer to that question? Why is this answer good enough for you but not us?

== Can women become gods?

Goddesses.

== the y always say they believe in 3 gods..

We do?

Dave: == LDS theology is effectively saying God is not God. Rather, he is just a powerful being (read 'exalted') that can shape play-dough. And if that's the case then this powerful being isn't worth being worshipped.

Then I would say that is your problem, not ours. We are not bound by the endless philosophical definitions of God as has been branded into modern Christian thought. Meaning, if he can't create ex nihilo then he shouldn't be worshipped. What a wrong-headed approach that is. According to Evangelicals, they only believe what the Bible says, but nowhere does the Bible say God created ex nihilo.

== Not to mention the fact that he was one time a sinful human.

This is false. That is not LDS doctrine.

I believe you are familiar with the King Follet Discourse.

Here is part of JS's speech on God.

God An Exalted Man

I will go back to the beginning before the world was, to show what kind of a being God is. What sort of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the earth, for I am going to prove it to you by the Bible, and to tell you the designs of God in relation to the human race, and why He interferes with the affairs of man.

God himself. was Once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible,—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another.

In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.

These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible.

HemofHisGarment

March 31st 2003, 09:28 PM

Today @ 07:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49832#post49832)
Dave:

...Adam was created in the...image and likeness of God...
being of God...incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple...the Father dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did...

a perfect being like Christ...having dwelt in a human body as Christ once did prior to his resurrection...

Why does this explanation of God disturb you?

.

Dave

March 31st 2003, 10:12 PM

Today @ 08:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49854#post49854)
HemofHisGarment:

a perfect being like Christ...having dwelt in a human body as Christ once did prior to his resurrection...

Why does this explanation of God disturb you?

.

it bothers me that people would want to worship a being who was once sinful. And you said that LDS theology did not teach that god was a sinful man. But I showed otherwise.

"God Himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp.345-346)

As we are now. that means sinful.

Hitch

March 31st 2003, 10:27 PM

I can see your concern for the "unsaved"; but honestly these missionaries and members are only doing and saying what they believe is right and true - even if they are mistaken; God knows the heart.

Spreading antichrist drivel is not something to be taken lightly .

II Jn 1:9-11
9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
(KJV)

Take care

Hitch

Xmansmommy

March 31st 2003, 10:29 PM

Yesterday @ 10:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48959#post48959)
HemofHisGarment:

Linda~
Would be very interested! And just an FYI - I am still on the LDS books, but have serious concerns. I just wanted you to know that my worship is not taking place within a church at this time, and my theology is open - that's why I am here. I just still feel that it is wrong to down the church; it is about as wrong as any other church in my current view...

.

Hem, thanks for your response and your willingness to listen. I am blessed by your attitude regarding learning. :smile: I in no way have any ill feelings toward anyone in the LDS church. I in no way intend to "down the church." I pray that you know my heart is sincere. I want to encourage you to keep seeking the answers to the questions that you have and to compare everything with scripture and see if it be so, like the noble Bereans in Acts 17:10-11. I will be posting a short version of my testimony here in a few days as I have yet to condense it. I appreciate your patience and interest. If there is anything I can do to help you in any way Hem, you can PM me and I'd be willing to help in any way possible, via PM, email or phone. I'll also be praying for you as I understand where you are at in your seeking, and I know what the scriptures say about those that seek God.

Heb:11:6: But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Hem, He knows your desire. May you be truly blessed as you seek to know Him as He has said He will reward you.

For and By Him,
Linda

HemofHisGarment

March 31st 2003, 10:33 PM

Hitch:

"Spreading antichrist drivel is not something to be taken lightly."

Yes, that is their purpose - to spread evil 'drivel'. Before serving a mission, they attend Satanic conferences and learn all the tactics to deceive people into following the path to hellfire.:no:

Dave:

"God Himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp.345-346) ... As we are now. that means sinful."

You can interpret it that way...It can also mean 'with a body'.

Linda:

Thank you so much...I appreciate your reply and hold it dear. I'll be looking forward to reading your testimony.

~Adrianne
.

Hitch

March 31st 2003, 10:43 PM

HemofHisGarment

March 31st 2003, 10:46 PM

Today @ 08:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49917#post49917)
Hitch:

Hitch:

"Spreading antichrist drivel is not something to be taken lightly."

Yes, that is their purpose - to spread evil 'drivel'. Before serving a mission, they attend Satanic conferences and learn all the tactics to deceive people into following the path to hellfire.

Yup. And with that nice clean cut look and the unassuming smile.

Too bad isnt it?

Take care

hitch

So sad...to think that was my secret purpose in '92 (Lansing, MI) and I didn't even know it! They tricked me!!!!

.

Hitch

March 31st 2003, 11:36 PM

Today @ 02:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49918#post49918)
HemofHisGarment:

So sad...to think that was my secret purpose in '92 (Lansing, MI) and I didn't even know it! They tricked me!!!!

. Yawn, the antichristian nature of mormon distinctives has been well documented on these pages, you despise that information at your own risk.

Hitch

Kevin W. Graham

April 1st 2003, 12:31 AM

Dave said,

== And you said that LDS theology did not teach that god was a sinful man. But I showed otherwise...As we are now. that means sinful.

No it doesn't. Sin was never mentioned in his discourse. That is something anti-Mormons choose to read into it to further serve their agenda. To say it is "LDS teaching" "LDS theology" or "LDS doctrine" that God was once "sinful," is to do nothing but lie through ones teeth. The Church has provided 170 years of literature written by hundreds of authorities, and not once will you find this so called "teaching" among them.

http://www.fairlds.org/apol/brochures/doctrine.pdf

Are we supposed to take the flippant and pithy comments from Hitch and Dave serious?

Hitch

April 1st 2003, 01:58 AM

Are we supposed to take the flippant and pithy comments from Hitch and Dave serious?

Why not I got it all from Nephite # 3.

Your problems dont come from anything I say. They come from the early LDS leadership and the paper trail they left. From Joey's visions to Talmage's support of 'celestial sireship' (LOL)

Ya know its not exactly news it took an 'unction' by way of the IRS to alter official LDS racist policies. Any more than is the 100% dearth os archeological support for the claims the BOM makes about the North American continent, but I dont care if you deny, defy or whatever. You will pay that bill not me.

take care

Hitch

Kevin W. Graham

April 1st 2003, 02:07 AM

That answers my question.

Thanks.

Hitch

April 1st 2003, 02:20 AM

No it doesn't. Sin was never mentioned in his discourse. That is something anti-Mormons choose to read into it to further serve their agenda. To say it is "LDS teaching" "LDS theology" or "LDS doctrine" that God was once "sinful," is to do nothing but lie through ones teeth. The Church has provided 170 years of literature written by hundreds of authorities, and not once will you find this so called "teaching" among them.

Well ya got a point there . It is a lie, a biggie too. I must admit to being a little off guard by the weakness in your response. I for one do not believe any man muchless a mormon cultists ever lived without sin. and Mr Hyde, part of that 170 years or apologist you brought up says it plain a daylight:

“Remember that God our heavenly Father, was perhaps once a child, and a mortal like we ourselves ,and rose step by step in the scale of progress, in the school of advancement; has moved forward and overcome until He has arrived at the point where He now is Hyde Journal of Discourses V 1 p123

Damn them paper trails...

Take care

Hitch

HemofHisGarment

April 1st 2003, 09:02 AM

Hitch:

"Mormonism is a satanic lie that hides behind 'christian' terms" vs. "the antichristian nature of mormon distinctives"

I don't despise information whatsoever, friend, only terms used for it such as 'satanic lie'...

Thanks anyway:smile:

bar Jonah

April 1st 2003, 11:12 AM

Perhaps the Mormons present can answer this question for the greater understanding of us all.

If Joseph Smith perfectly translated the Book of Mormon in 1835... why is it necessary to rewrite it every few years? I have two copies of the Book of Mormon -- from 1948 and 1981 -- and they are not the same.

Kevin W. Graham

April 1st 2003, 12:31 PM

First thing to point out is the LDS don't believe in inerrancy of scripture, and this includes the BoM. Most people don't realize this, but the first BoM publication was not printed from the Original manuscript (OM). It was printed from the Printers manuscript (PM) that was produced by Oliver Cowdery. It has many changes which were intended to correct the errors in the OM.

Various priniting have tried to go back to what Smith produced in the OM, but unfortunately only about 28% of it is extant. The Church has not been that serious in coming up with an absolutely perfect translation because inerrancy of scripture is not a tenet of Mormonism. There are still errors in it today I would imagine.

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?a=transcripts/00027.inc

Thsi discusses it in limited detail.

bar Jonah

April 1st 2003, 12:41 PM

So what you're saying is that even though mainstream Christianity has scripture manuscripts going back before your alleged Great Apostasy, our bible isn't reliable... but after your alleged prophet Joseph Smith made a correct translation of your scriptures as recently as the 1830s, your church promply lost more than two thirds of it, yet you claim we can rely on it...?

Kevin W. Graham

April 1st 2003, 02:04 PM

== So what you're saying is that even though mainstream Christianity has scripture manuscripts going back before your alleged Great Apostasy, our bible isn't reliable...

Where did I comment on the Bible or its reliability?

cromis has written on this topic here: http://www.anti-mormonism-revealed.com/M2017.htm

And myself here:
http://www.anti-mormonism-revealed.com/M2017G.htm

== but after your alleged prophet Joseph Smith made a correct translation of your scriptures as recently as the 1830s, your church promply lost more than two thirds of it, yet you claim we can rely on it...?

The difference is that we rely upon revelation first and scripture second. You guys do it the other way around. Scripture first and then revelation so long as it doesn't conflict with scripture. Scripture came by way of revelation, not revelation by way of scripture. But since Evangelical Christainity doesn't claim any sense of spiritual authority like the LDS and Catholic Churches, you have no choice but to rely on sola scriptura. What else is left? So this paradigm is unique to Evangelicals alone. The Bible must be inerrant. You can't force this paradigm into LDS thought.

The BoM may have errors in it or it may not. No big deal either way for us really since we are led by revelation foremost. In your model however, you're led by the Bible alone, so for you it MUST be perfect or reliable.

bar Jonah

April 1st 2003, 03:10 PM

So now you're saying the Mormon Church is more founded in truth because whereas we stand on the bedrock foundation of God's unchanging word... the Mormons change their theology every few years to keep up with the times?

One minute, y'all are claiming Adam was/is God the Father "and the only god with whom we have anything to do" ... and the next minute, you're excommunicating people for preaching that. What a great idea, being founded on the "revelations" of men rather than on scripture. :ahem:

So, it's no longer the Mormon Church's position that the sun and moon are inhabited by beings?

In case you didn't read one of my previous posts, I quoted Brigham Young as stating that anything in his sermons could be considered scripture.

Kevin W. Graham

April 1st 2003, 04:39 PM

== So now you're saying the Mormon Church is more founded in truth because whereas we stand on the bedrock foundation of God's unchanging word... the Mormons change their theology every few years to keep up with the times?

Yeah, that is exactly what I said isn't it. Sigh... I give up. First of all what is so "unchanging" about God's Word? Which word are you referring to anyway? The one that changed in the NIV, the NKJV, the NASB or what? Or maybe the unchanging Word which added an extra 900+ words to the book of Jeremiah, as found in the traditional text as opposed to the LXX/DSS version. No matter what spin you put on it, the "Word of God" went through a period of change indeed - despite Deuteronomy's claim that nothing was to be added.

Second of all, since when is "Historic Christian" doctrine stagnate? Ever hear of this innovative idea called the Trinity? Hate to burst your bubble bub, but that was something that came about through many centuries of philosophical head-banging. But that is only the tip of the iceberg. Sola scriptura? Sola gracia? Thank you Reformers. Even the doctrine of inerrancy has muted from one form to another, according to the textual discoveries that refute its premise. The doctrine is so refuted that 40% of all Evangelical theologians are beginning to abandon it altogether. But hey, Christian doctrine doesn't change at all now does it? On which planet do you live?

== One minute, y'all are claiming Adam was/is God the Father "and the only god with whom we have anything to do" ... and the next minute, you're excommunicating people for preaching that. What a great idea, being founded on the "revelations" of men rather than on scripture.

Scripture was founded by revelation was it not? Did God write the Bible or did he inspire men to do so? You guys have it backwards. Scripture is not teh standard by which we judge revelation - revelation is the standard by which we determine scripture. This is how it had always been. Did Moses run to previous scriupture to confirm his revelations from God? Did Abraham? Adam-God was never official LDS doctrine and those who were ex'd were those who tried to make it so. BY himself said quite emphatically that it wasn't worth trying to figure out because he didn't really understand it himself. He was excited about it at the beginning but eventually dropped it. It was never canonized as LDS doctrine in any format whatsoever, and there is no clear consensus on what he meant by Adam-God anyway. Anti-Mormons think they know for sure, but their argument contradicts many of BY's teachings that Adam was created by God.

== So, it's no longer the Mormon Church's position that the sun and moon are inhabited by beings?

It never was the Mormon Church's position. Are you actually trying to sound ignorant? http://www.lightplanet.com/response/answers/moon.htm

== In case you didn't read one of my previous posts, I quoted Brigham Young as stating that anything in his sermons could be considered scripture.

The context says that it is scriptrure so long as he has the chance to go over and edit it. So where did BY ever canonize his sermons? He didn't. Why? Because, like I said, we don't have a need for all truth to be found in an inerrant scripture somewhere.

Xmansmommy

April 1st 2003, 04:41 PM

In an attempt to condense my testimony, I'm sure it's lost some of it's meaning but here is the gist of it......

Having been raised in a dysfunctional home, God was not the center of my life as a child and as a young adult. So, having no spiritual or biblical structure in my life, naturally the influences of this world took precedence as my moral dictator. Sure, I had morals and standards in some areas of my life, and in others I found my morals lacking greatly.
I had prayed in my life, mainly when I was faced with a struggle or situation that was not pleasing. Through some very unique circumstances in my life I had begun to question who God was and what the purpose for this life was. My sister in law gave me a book entitled, “Embraced By the Light.” It was the account of a lady who had experienced as she says, death on two separate occasions. She explained the things she had seen, heard, felt, and experienced.
Little did I know the impact reading that book would have on my life. While reading it, and after reading it, I became consumed with thoughts of God and who He was and what He required of me. What would happen to me when I died, I questioned? This began a journey that has forever changed me.
A friend of a friend who was studying with the LDS missionaries invited me to have them over to have the discussions. Eventually I agreed to. I thought about, prayed, and began to search for the answers that I had been seeking. After 7 months of deep soul searching and seeking after spiritual things, I joined the LDS church. Two of my children who were old enough, joined a few months later as well.
We were very active in the church. Attended every meeting, every BOM study group and doing the things required to be a Mormon in good standing. I fulfilled each of my callings with a great zeal to serve the Lord. I had read the BOM 2 times with my children and another 1 and ½ times on my own. I attended the temple, paid my tithe, etc. I bore my testimony often, as I felt prompted by the HS. I believed that what the LDS church taught was true and that it was God’s true church restored to the earth. There were some issues that I didn’t fully understand, but I believed in faith that this was God’s true church and that those things would become clearer to me as God would reveal them to me in time. I realized that we learn line upon line, precept upon precept, etc.
Struggling to be perfect in the flesh as we were exhorted in the church, I became guilt ridden because I realized that I failed, not only in my thoughts, but in my deeds as well. Eventually, being overwhelmed by the church’s standards, as I understood they were biblical, based on my understanding of scripture, I left the church in presence but not in belief. I would have died defending the LDS teachings. I did know however, I could not attain the perfection required, in my flesh.
I would fellowship with members online, on AOL, because I still longed for that unity that LDS members share. As time wore on and I became a regular in the chat room, I noticed that there was what was called “anti Mormons” (anyone that voiced a belief contrary to LDS doctrine) and those who were what I’ll call, “Mormon friendly” (those that disagreed with LDS doctrine respectfully).
Several people were regulars who were Mormon friendly. They would come and ask questions that would cause those who cared to, to think and go to the scriptures for answers. Me, being the curious person that I am and not having much knowledge, I would often go to the scriptures and see what they were discussing without really participating in the chat.
One lady in particular made a comment which I had heard several times before which had always bothered me. I suppose it bothered me even moreso because I had always liked her and she had such a gentle sweet spirit. In a very loving way she suggested that the LDS did not worship the Jesus of the bible. I had mixed emotions regarding her statement. I was infuriated mostly however. “How can she say that I don’t worship the Jesus of the bible?” I asked myself. I read about Him in the bible. I read about His life. I read the miracles He did and I knew He died on the cross for the world to allow mankind the opportunity to have “another chance.” It was in my opinion, ignorance that suggested I didn’t worship the Jesus of the bible.
I decided to go to the bible to prove her wrong. Over the course of the next few months, I would private message with this Christian lady who challenged me lovingly to search the scriptures and believe what they said about the Lord Jesus Christ, which I believed I already did. She would later get very specific in her questions and I of course would answer with the usual answers based on LDS doctrine.
Eventually, as I a read and studied my bible, I began to see that what I had believed and had been taught, were not the same as what I was reading. I was so confused because I had prayed so many times that God would not allow me to be deceived, yet I could not overlook the differences in what I believed and what I was reading. I had a choice to make. I could hold to the things that I had learned and thought to be true, or I could believe the portrait that the bible painted of Jesus. I made a choice to believe the bible at that time.
I was so greatly discouraged and felt that God had lied to me. I knew that it was Him who testified to me by the burning in the bosom and by the Spirit testifying to me when things were true. I almost lost all faith that there indeed was a God. I didn’t give up though. I started reading my bible and learning that there were other doctrinal teachings that either weren’t in the bible, or simply weren’t taught the way the LDS church taught them. I knew that what the LDS church taught on many things were not biblical. I didn’t however know the answers.
I became a participant during this time on the voice chat program, Paltalk. I would go into the Christian rooms and ask bible questions. I was encouraged to believe the bible. Yet when I read the bible I noticed differences that I didn’t understand within it’s own pages. In time, I started attending a room that studied the bible nightly. I would go and follow along word for word in my bible to make sure that what they were teaching was biblical. I would ask questions during the designated time. These folks were able to explain to me the differences that I found in scripture and allowed me to finally understand the bible and fully believe it. It was because of these faithful brethren that I finally learned what God required of me, and I was able to trust in the finished work of Jesus Christ at Calvary for me.
You see, I learned that Christ died for me while I was yet a sinner (Romans 5:8). Not to give me another chance, or so that I could try to be good enough to please God. But because He loved me, He fully paid my sin debt. He took upon Himself my sins, my death, my burial and my resurrection, so that I by simply trusting He accomplished it all, would be saved and I could take upon His righteousness and His life. I thank Him for what He has done for me and I praise him daily. I am learning what His will is by reading His word and believing and applying those truths to my life.

Hemof, I know what you are struggling with. Maybe not all the details, but I understand. And God says He rewards them who diligently seek Him. I had to give up everything I knew to be true in order to learn the truth. It wasn’t an easy task and I promise you that it won’t be for you if you decide to do so as well. But I can assure you that it is so worth it.

1Tm:2:1: I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; 2:2: For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. 2:3: For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 2:4: Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 2:5: For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 2:6: Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

Hemof, I pray that my testimony is in some way helpful to you in your struggles. You aren't alone. I pray that you would seek Him as He is not far from you. Ac:17:27: That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
I also pray that you would set aside everything that you know to be true and allow the bible to be the standard with which you find and believe truth. It's easy to think we are right. It's hard to realize we are wrong. My prayers are with you. If you have any questions I am willing to do my best to answer them to the best of my ability. May we all grow in God's grace, knowledge and truth.

All for His Glory!
Linda

Bill the Cat

April 1st 2003, 04:41 PM

Bill: == I am against no member, just their ideas about God.

Mormon is also an "adjective." I am a Mormon, but I'm also Mormon. If you are against anything Mormon (theology, attitude, teachings, etc), then technically you can be called anti-Mormon just like anti-Christians are against the concept of Christainity, not Christians themselves.

And technically JP can too, does that make me one?

Another interesting factoid is that the term anti-Mormon was used by anti-Mormons themselves as they gave themselves that label back in the 19th century.

Neat. I never knew that.

== I tried to have a discussion with a mormon friend of mine and make a logical equation for him...

This is what I don't understand. You guys can't explain the Trinity without sweeping it under the "mystery of God" excuse, yet we are suppose to offer every detail as to what God did, who he was with, where WE were, what we were doing etc, prior to this existence on earth.

Nope, I just wanted an answer how HF could be described as from eternity. If he didn't exist before he was born(?) to Heavenly Grandma and Grandpa, then he could not be described as from eternity.

Let me turn teh question around as I have done so before. What did God do for the zillions of zillions of years prior to treh creation of the universe and his children? The usual Christian response is, "we don't know."

Then I must not be the usual Christian. God is not subject to time, so He did not have a "before" Creation. God started time at creation and we observe it, not Him. He is from eternity to eternity. He is always in the present. THere is no past for Him and no future. Therefore He can say that he is the I AM (not was, not will be)

And why should you have to know the answer to that question? Why is this answer good enough for you but not us?

so like I said, I just need an explanation. I gave one.

== Can women become gods?

Goddesses.

good to be pc. :thumb:

== they always say they believe in 3 gods..

We do?

Yep, other than the Brigham Young statement of Gods as numerous as the stars in the heavens. Gimme article one of your articles of faith and you will answer yourself. Like I said, in order for H.M. to be a goddess, you must alter article one.

Kevin W. Graham

April 1st 2003, 05:07 PM

Hey Cat, I'm a huge X-men fan too. I had hundreds of issues since I was age 10, and then I sold them 12 years ago like a moron.

== And technically JP can too, does that make me one?

Technically, if we go by the strict definition. However I have a tendency not avoid that definition mainly because I know most don't like it and feel like it is some sort of ad hominem against them. So I usually dodge it unless they make it perfectly clear that they are anti-Mormon. For example, the dead heads that don't want to listen or dialogue, just preach and damn to hell.

== Nope, I just wanted an answer how HF could be described as from eternity. If he didn't exist before he was born(?) to Heavenly Grandma and Grandpa, then he could not be described as from eternity.

What do you think the Bible means by "from everlasting to everlasting?" The Hebrew term olam simply means "the beginning or end of which is either uncertain or undefined." (Gensenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon) The mountains are also referred to as everlasting. Were they always mountains? As for the issue of God having a grandpa, this was also a question asked of Iraneus during the second century. Bickmore pointed this out to me some time ago, and the response is interesting:
"The Father, therefore, has been declared by our Lord to excel with respect to knowledge; for this reason, that we, too, as long as we are connected with the scheme of things in this world, should leave perfect knowledge, and such questions, to God, and should not by any chance, while we seek to investigate the sublime nature of the Father, fall into the danger of starting the question whether there is another God above God." [Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2:27:8, in ANF 1:402.]

From this statement of Irenaeus, we may conclude that 1) there were some Christians who DID believe there was a God above God, and 2) the idea of it wasn't totally antithetical to Irenaeus' conception of God - he just didn't think it was proper to speculate about such things. This last point is important because it illustrates the fact that the concept of God radically changed over the first few Christian centuries. If you asked either the later fathers or modern mainstream Christians whether there could be a God above God, they would say, "NO!!!!" They would never EVER, say, "We shouldn't speculate about such things." Which is essentially the same position we take.

== Then I must not be the usual Christian. God is not subject to time, so He did not have a "before" Creation. God started time at creation and we observe it, not Him. He is from eternity to eternity. He is always in the present. THere is no past for Him and no future. Therefore He can say that he is the I AM (not was, not will be)

Don't take this the wrong way, but nothing in your explanation is biblical. This was an ad hoc explanation offered by the Greek philosophers, which apparently diffuses MANY questions pertaining to God's beginning. The idea that God transcends space and time was foreign to the Hebrews and is strictly a hellenistic contribution which helped develop Traditional Christainity.

== good to be pc.

Yeah really. Although some women call themselves goddesses already. :huh:

== Yep, other than the Brigham Young statement of Gods as numerous as the stars in the heavens. Gimme article one of your articles of faith and you will answer yourself. Like I said, in order for H.M. to be a goddess, you must alter article one.

Not at all. LDS scripture and writings constantly refer to the Godhead, which is commonly described as one God. The best way to think of it is one throne which is shared by three. Something not at all uncharacteristic of the Bible since it says we will ALL share in God's throne and even sit on it! Does it mean we will become one God within him like Trinitarians suppose of Christ? Of course not. The BoM constantly declares one God, as did the OT.

Bill the Cat

April 2nd 2003, 10:54 AM

I'll have a go at this later. I am out in the field today, so my response may be a bit delayed today.

Bill the Cat

April 2nd 2003, 02:40 PM

Yesterday @ 04:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50406#post50406)
Kevin W. Graham:

Hey Cat, I'm a huge X-men fan too. I had hundreds of issues since I was age 10, and then I sold them 12 years ago like a moron.

Well, I only have 1 issue right now. I'm a reader, not a saver. The one issue I have was the finale of the Onslaught series. It is still in the plastic. I got it appraised last year at $7.00. Woooo!! (hint of sarchasm)

Technically, if we go by the strict definition. However I have a tendency not avoid that definition mainly because I know most don't like it and feel like it is some sort of ad hominem against them. So I usually dodge it unless they make it perfectly clear that they are anti-Mormon. For example, the dead heads that don't want to listen or dialogue, just preach and damn to hell.

well, I appreciate that, and by your definition, I am not one

== Nope, I just wanted an answer how HF could be described as from eternity. If he didn't exist before he was born(?) to Heavenly Grandma and Grandpa, then he could not be described as from eternity.

What do you think the Bible means by "from everlasting to everlasting?" The Hebrew term olam simply means "the beginning or end of which is either uncertain or undefined." (Gensenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon) The mountains are also referred to as everlasting. Were they always mountains?

In discussion of olam, it can mean everlasting past or everlasting future or everlasting in terms of stability. Gensenius is limiting the meaning. Brown-Driver Briggs Hebrew Definitions lists olam as
1) long duration, antiquity, futurity, for ever, ever, everlasting, evermore, perpetual, old, ancient, world
1a) ancient time, long time (of past)
1b) (of future)
1b1) for ever, always
1b2) continuous existence, perpetual
1b3) everlasting, indefinite or unending future, eternity

The ISBE answers your objection about the mountains like this:
“Everlasting,” in strictness, is that which endures forever; either that which has no beginning and will have no end (in which sense it is applicable to God only), or that which, having a beginning, will have no end, but henceforth will exist forever (thus of beings created for immortality; see IMMORTALITY). Figuratively also the term is applied to objects of impressive stability and long duration, as mountains, hills (e.g. Gen_49:26; Hab_3:6).

Vines lists the NT equivalent as well as:
<1,,166,aionios>
see ETERNAL.

<2,,126,aidios>
denotes "everlasting" (from aei, "ever"), Rom_1:20, RV, "everlasting," for AV, "eternal;" Jud_1:6, AV and RV "everlasting." Aionios, should always be translated "eternal" and aidios, "everlasting." "While aionios ... negatives the end either of a space of time or of unmeasured time, and is used chiefly where something future is spoken of, aidios excludes interruption and lays stress upon permanence and unchangeableness" (Cremer).

As for the issue of God having a grandpa, this was also a question asked of Iraneus during the second century. Bickmore pointed this out to me some time ago, and the response is interesting:
"The Father, therefore, has been declared by our Lord to excel with respect to knowledge; for this reason, that we, too, as long as we are connected with the scheme of things in this world, should leave perfect knowledge, and such questions, to God, and should not by any chance, while we seek to investigate the sublime nature of the Father, fall into the danger of starting the question whether there is another God above God."

Well, against Heresies was written to Gnostics who taught that Jesus was the 30th Aion.

that Monogenes, acting in accordance with the prudent forethought of the Father, gave origin to another conjugal pair, namely Christ and the Holy Spirit (lest any of the Aeons should fall into a calamity similar to that of Sophia), for the purpose of fortifying and strengthening the Pleroma, and who at the same time completed the number of the Aeons
[I]Irenaeus Against Heresies Chapter 2 verse 5

In context verse 7 says:

that we should display such an extreme of presumption as to lay open God, and things which are not yet discovered, as if already we had found out, by the vain talk about emissions, God Himself, the Creator of all things, and to assert that He derived His substance from apostasy and ignorance, so as to frame an impious hypothesis in opposition to God.

Irenaeus is jibing the gnostics here v.7 and as seen in verse 9 immediately following Bickmore's quote , to show their divine knowledge. He was not telling Christians to not seek the knowledge of God, but instigating the Gnostics to prove what they were saying.

From this statement of Irenaeus, we may conclude that 1) there were some Christians who DID believe there was a God above God,

Nope, Gnostics. In the year 177, Irenaeus was sent to Rome. This mission explains how it was that he was not called upon to share in the martyrdom of St Pothinus during the terrible persecution in Lyons. When he returned to Lyons it was to occupy the vacant bishopric. By this time, the persecution was over. It was the spread of Gnosticism in Gaul, and the ravages it was making among the Christians of his diocese, that inspired him to undertake the task of exposing its errors.

and 2) the idea of it wasn't totally antithetical to Irenaeus' conception of God - he just didn't think it was proper to speculate about such things. This last point is important because it illustrates the fact that the concept of God radically changed over the first few Christian centuries.

He didn't think the Gnostics should spread their ideas to the weak new Christians to sway them.

Preface.
1. Inasmuch as certain men have set the truth aside, and bring in lying words and vain genealogies, which, as the apostle says, "minister questions rather than godly edifying which is in faith," and by means of their craftily-constructed plausibilities draw away the minds of the inexperienced and take them captive, [I have felt constrained, my dear friend, to compose the following treatise in order to expose and counteract their machinations.] These men falsify the oracles of God, and prove themselves evil interpreters of the good word of revelation. They also overthrow the faith of many, by drawing them away, under a pretence of [superior] knowledge, from Him who rounded and adorned the universe; as if, forsooth, they had something more excellent and sublime to reveal, than that God who created the heaven and the earth, and all things that are therein. By means of specious and plausible words, they cunningly allure the simple-minded to inquire into their system; but they nevertheless clumsily destroy them, while they initiate them into their blasphemous and impious opinions respecting the Demiurge; and these simple ones are unable, even in such a matter, to distinguish falsehood from truth.
[I]Irenaeus Against Heresies Preface

See here, Irenaeus was referring to the weak minded new Christians getting swayed away from the Truth by the "johnny-come-lately" gnostics.

If you asked either the later fathers or modern mainstream Christians whether there could be a God above God, they would say, "NO!!!!" They would never EVER, say, "We shouldn't speculate about such things." Which is essentially the same position we take.

People like Irenaeus and Valentinus were the reason for orthodoxy to be defined and heresy condemned.

== Then I must not be the usual Christian. God is not subject to time, so He did not have a "before" Creation. God started time at creation and we observe it, not Him. He is from eternity to eternity. He is always in the present. THere is no past for Him and no future. Therefore He can say that he is the I AM (not was, not will be)

Don't take this the wrong way, but nothing in your explanation is biblical. This was an ad hoc explanation offered by the Greek philosophers, which apparently diffuses MANY questions pertaining to God's beginning. The idea that God transcends space and time was foreign to the Hebrews and is strictly a hellenistic contribution which helped develop Traditional Christainity.

Well, just to set the record straight, I got this definition from a world religion site defining the Jewish religion:
http://re-xs.ucsm.ac.uk/gcsere/revision/judaism/jud1/page1.html

Jews believe that there is only one God. Judaism is a monotheistic religion (mono = one, theistic = about God). When Jews pray to God they call 'him' Adonai, which means Lord. Jews use this name of God with great respect and would never use it carelessly. Jews also believe that God is eternal. That he is always present, that he knows everything and that he cares about the world that he has made. This idea of care means that Jews believe that God can be experienced through all of the world.

Jews are monotheistic and believe God is eternal.

== Yep, other than the Brigham Young statement of Gods as numerous as the stars in the heavens. Gimme article one of your articles of faith and you will answer yourself. Like I said, in order for H.M. to be a goddess, you must alter article one.

Not at all. LDS scripture and writings constantly refer to the Godhead, which is commonly described as one God. The best way to think of it is one throne which is shared by three. Something not at all uncharacteristic of the Bible since it says we will ALL share in God's throne and even sit on it! Does it mean we will become one God within him like Trinitarians suppose of Christ? Of course not. The BoM constantly declares one God, as did the OT.

But to redefine the term, for LDS, God is a job title, not a person. The throne is not literal though. It refers to Jesus' dominion over the Earth and Heavens. As perfected saints, we will have dominion with Him. You are right to declare that the OT defines one God, but He knows no other who can be called God. So if there are 3 people united in purpose, but separate in ontology, why did Jehovah not know them?

Isa 44:8 'Do not tremble and do not be afraid; Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it? And you are My witnesses. Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any other Rock? I know of none.'"

Kevin W. Graham

April 3rd 2003, 01:27 AM

== Well, I only have 1 issue right now. I'm a reader, not a saver. The one issue I have was the finale of the Onslaught series. It is still in the plastic. I got it appraised last year at $7.00. Woooo!! (hint of sarchasm)

Well, I am way behind. I haven't even caught up to the point where Wolverine got his adamatium back. Every once in awhile I'm tempted to walk into a comic shop and ask them to give me the sopa opra scoop for the past 8 years. I remember buying the mini-series of Wolverine back in 5th grade. I bought like 4 copies of each. Each set sold for about 100 bucks. When I was 13 I asked my Dad for Uncanny X-men #1 since it was only about $150 at the time. He came so cloase to buying it, and I wish he had. The thing is worth like $5,000 now. I still have some old Spidermans with 15-40 cent price tags, but they are in crappy condition.

Anyway...

== well, I appreciate that, and by your definition, I am not one

I figured as much.

== In discussion of olam, it can mean everlasting past or everlasting future or everlasting in terms of stability. Gensenius is limiting the meaning.

Well, I would see it the other way around. Brown-Driver Briggs, whose work is based on Gensenius, is simply extending the meaning to suit an obvious theological gap. To blow off the reference to the everlasting mountains as merely "figurative" seems like a cop-out on their part. This clearly shows that Genesenius wasn't limiting anything at all, but was right on the money. This arbitrary application of metaphorical/figurative understanding is something I take issue with in Holding's review. It appears to be their "out" whenever they need it. But this methodology flies in the face of Evangelical claims that we have to take the Bible for what it says. Clearly there are double-standards at play, and it is hard to keep track of them at times.

It seems like whenever something doesn't bode well with an orthodox perspective, the figurative/metaphorical card is always being played. But this just begs the question, and for this reason scholarship is concluding that a meaning should always be understood literally unless there is strong reason to see it figuratively. In this case the only reason to accept a figurative reading appears to be theological. And of course, only those who come from the same theology in which it intends to support, will find such argumentum impressive. In the end it is one interpretation over another. Latter-day Saints are not compelled to find Brown-Driver Briggs as an acceptable update "news flash" obviously because it isn't in our theological interests. But the strength of our position is that the former wasn't an LDS creation. While the latter is certainly influenced by orthodoxy.

== Well, against Heresies was written to Gnostics who taught that Jesus was the 30th Aion.

True, but it would still seem more likely that Iraneus would have rejected the possibility of God having a Father altogether, if he were so against its plausibility. Regardless of the audience.

== People like Irenaeus and Valentinus were the reason for orthodoxy to be defined and heresy condemned.

Fair enough. But the winners of the big debate are the ones who get to write history and call teh losers "heretics." Just think what would have happened if Arius had defeated Athanasius? Something that almost happened, and in fact DID happen until Arius was assassinated. I don't put a lot of stock in labels like heretics when they are arbitrarily applied by those who developed orthodoxy. Good grief, I mean even Origen was considered a heretic by some.

== Well, just to set the record straight, I got this definition from a world religion site defining the Jewish religion:

This is just a modern-day statement of faith. They will also tell you that a Trinitarian union of the Godhead is completely foreign to their mode of thought and their Torah, but I doubt you would be too convinced by that. But I'm not under the delusion that modern Judaism resembles ancient Judaism in that respect. It clearly moved towards a theology similar to Orthodox Christianity when Christianity was competing with it. The ancient belief that God was embodied was gradually replaced, for example. The idea of a transcendent God was simply beyond the Jewish manner of thinking. You'll read more on this in my review of Holding.

== Jews are monotheistic and believe God is eternal.

He is eternal, but you're going to have to define the term monotheism. The ancient Jews did not believe God was the only God in existence; they simply believed he was the only God they were to worship. The "God of Gods", and the Father of all gods. For this reason, even Evangelical scholars are beginning to move away from the common application of monotheism.

== But to redefine the term, for LDS, God is a job title, not a person.

Not at all. He is a person. A man in fact. Can't get more personal than that in my book. But God was commonly referred to as an authority. This is why the angels in the OT were simply called God. They came in his authority. To be a God in ancient Judaism simply meant to have immortality. They couldn't die. They were not different from Yahweh in kind, only in power. All of the Greek philosophical definitions of God were completely foreign to the ancient Jews - except for omnipotence maybe. If this were not true, then hellenization would have played no role at all in developing orthodoxy. But it most certainly did, as any scholar will testify. Even Evangelical scholars admit that this is the case, but they simply argue that deriving from Greek influence doesn't mean correct or incorrect. And on this point they are right.

== The throne is not literal though. It refers to Jesus' dominion over the Earth and Heavens.

The throne is literal. The visions of the heavenly throne cannot be swept under the metaphor carpet. Either way, the dominion, his inheritance, is what we will share with Him. Joint-heirs with Christ. The LDS concept of the Godhead is in perfect harmony with the ancient visions of the divine council - ontologically speaking. There is one "Most High" the Father, and several gods who were his children. Christ was one of them. Heavenly Mother was his wife - a Goddess- but we concede that there is no reference to her (unless we accept the references to Asherah). We hardly ever make reference to her either, but for our own reasons that we believe were shared by the ancients.

== As perfected saints, we will have dominion with Him. You are right to declare that the OT defines one God, but He knows no other who can be called God.

No, context requires a reference to false idols. But even Isaiah doesn't negate the existence of the divine council.

== So if there are 3 people united in purpose, but separate in ontology, why did Jehovah not know them?

Because you can't really know man made idols. Do a search for graven image/idols in the book of Isaiah and you'll get dozens of hits in almost every chapter. The question was about power and authority. "Who is like thee of Lord" refers to his power, not his ontological/metaphysical state of being.

Bill the Cat

April 3rd 2003, 02:48 PM

Today @ 12:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=51799#post51799)
Kevin W. Graham:

snip awesome X-Men dialogue :bawl:

== In discussion of olam, it can mean everlasting past or everlasting future or everlasting in terms of stability. Gensenius is limiting the meaning.

Well, I would see it the other way around. Brown-Driver Briggs, whose work is based on Gensenius, is simply extending the meaning to suit an obvious theological gap.

Well, i think these guys are a bit more responsible than you give them credit for.

To blow off the reference to the everlasting mountains as merely "figurative" seems like a cop-out on their part.

Actually that was the ISBE. And even by your standards, the mountains were created by God in Genesis, so don't qualify as from everlasting, unless we do as well. According to your theology, so i've been told by my LDS friend, our spirits are older than the mountains because we were born before Gen 1:1.

This clearly shows that Genesenius wasn't limiting anything at all, but was right on the money.

ISBE called it figurative, not BDB, so sorry if I didn't make it more clear.

This arbitrary application of metaphorical/figurative understanding is something I take issue with in Holding's review. It appears to be their "out" whenever they need it.

I don't think it's arbitrary in any stretch. LDS do the same thing when we see the anthropomorphic attributes given to God. Eyes, hands, feet, etc. To argue against that I simply call on the Psalms and Deuteronomy. Does God have wings? Is God a consuming fire like a blast furnace? I can say your tossing the latter into anthropomorphism is just as arbitrary. It takes a bit of discernment when someting is being used metaphorically or not. To toss our opinion on the matter aside as arbitrary is nothing short of elitist.

But this methodology flies in the face of Evangelical claims that we have to take the Bible for what it says. Clearly there are double-standards at play, and it is hard to keep track of them at times.

Well, not in all cases should it be taken literally. See my Psalms reference above. I think we can both agree God doesn't have wings.

It seems like whenever something doesn't bode well with an orthodox perspective, the figurative/metaphorical card is always being played. But this just begs the question, and for this reason scholarship is concluding that a meaning should always be understood literally unless there is strong reason to see it figuratively.

No, the orthodox position defines what is figurative and metaphorical, not the other way around. as far as the scholarship question, that's why orthodoxy was defined in the first place.

In this case the only reason to accept a figurative reading appears to be theological. And of course, only those who come from the same theology in which it intends to support, will find such argumentum impressive.

Whether someone finds it impressive is irrelivant. The argument I made above clearly argues against the literal interpretation of olam being used to refer to mountains, unless it also can be used to refer to us as well, which the Bible clearly speaks against. The mountains are older than man in every aspect.

Job 38:4 "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding,
Job 38:5 Who set its measurements? Since you know. Or who stretched the line on it?
Job 38:6 "On what were its bases sunk? Or who laid its cornerstone,
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together And all the sons of God shouted for joy?

This rhetorical question was to show Job's friends that they were not there!!!

In the end it is one interpretation over another. Latter-day Saints are not compelled to find Brown-Driver Briggs as an acceptable update "news flash" obviously because it isn't in our theological interests.

As long as you understand that

But the strength of our position is that the former wasn't an LDS creation. While the latter is certainly influenced by orthodoxy.

How can that be strength of position? Has the LDS printed anything critical of it's own theology? If not, then it's really not relevant who influenced it. To blame BDB for being influenced by orthodoxy is a double edged sword. Everything the LDS puts out is influenced by LDS theology.

== Well, against Heresies was written to Gnostics who taught that Jesus was the 30th Aion.

True, but it would still seem more likely that Iraneus would have rejected the possibility of God having a Father altogether, if he were so against its plausibility. Regardless of the audience.

You missed the point. Ireneas didn't need to reject the possibility, because he was not talking to Christians. He was talking to Gnostics about their own beliefs. He was refuting the belief (from verse 7) that God came from an apostate emmission of the pleroma. He challenged them to show their hand. For him to argue that God had no father was not productive, because that would have put him on the defensive, and it was an offensive letter.

== People like Irenaeus and Valentinus were the reason for orthodoxy to be defined and heresy condemned.

Fair enough. But the winners of the big debate are the ones who get to write history and call teh losers "heretics."

I think that public knowledge would have a say in this "debate". For Ireneas to make such sweeping dismissals of the Gnostics' theology, he had to have the true record behind him.

Just think what would have happened if Arius had defeated Athanasius? Something that almost happened, and in fact DID happen until Arius was assassinated.

I would like to think that we still would have figured the truth out.

From http://www2.evansville.edu/ecoleweb/glossary/arianism.html
Arianism, a Trinitarian doctrine promoted by Arius (c 250-336 CE), denied the divinity of Christ and focused on the dissimilarity between the Father and Son

The divinity of the Son is something we both agree on.

I don't put a lot of stock in labels like heretics when they are arbitrarily applied by those who developed orthodoxy. Good grief, I mean even Origen was considered a heretic by some.

He sure was labeled that. And with some good reason.

From http://www.monachos.net/patristics/origen_apokatastasis.shtml
In attempting a study into the nature and character of Origen’s thought, one rapidly comes upon a troubling difficulty: no two scholars on the subject seem to agree on just what this thought truly represents. Indeed, it is often argued that Origen himself was not entirely sure of his own theological system, as many are the instances in which he presents multiple, contradictory views towards an issue, then leaves the discussion without choosing from among them.

== Well, just to set the record straight, I got this definition from a world religion site defining the Jewish religion:

This is just a modern-day statement of faith. They will also tell you that a Trinitarian union of the Godhead is completely foreign to their mode of thought and their Torah, but I doubt you would be too convinced by that.

You'd be surprised. The Shemah is very straight forward in stating there is only one God. I believe the trinitarian God wasn't fully revealed until the incarnation.

But I'm not under the delusion that modern Judaism resembles ancient Judaism in that respect. It clearly moved towards a theology similar to Orthodox Christianity when Christianity was competing with it. The ancient belief that God was embodied was gradually replaced, for example.

Well, Jesus pretty much kaiboshed that idea. See John 4:24

The idea of a transcendent God was simply beyond the Jewish manner of thinking. You'll read more on this in my review of Holding.

David understood in Psa 139:8

== Jews are monotheistic and believe God is eternal.

He is eternal, but you're going to have to define the term monotheism. The ancient Jews did not believe God was the only God in existence; they simply believed he was the only God they were to worship.

God was clear in Isaiah that there were no other who could be called God. All other gods are called false gods.

Isa 44:8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared ? ye [are] even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, [there is] no God; I know not [any].

Isa 45:6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that [there is] none beside me. I [am] the LORD, and [there is] none else.

The "God of Gods", and the Father of all gods.

Refers to majesty, like the song of songs. It's an idiom.
"Song of Solomon - The Song of Solomon, called in the Vulgate and Septuagint, "The Song of Songs," from the opening words. This title denotes its superior excellence, according to the Hebrew idiom; so holy of holies, equivalent to "most holy" (Exo_29:37); the heaven of heavens, equivalent to the highest heavens (Deu_10:14)"

For this reason, even Evangelical scholars are beginning to move away from the common application of monotheism.

My best bud's dad is an evangelical scholar and I called him and asked him about your statement and he said he does not agree with your assertation. Dr Mike Luper, Emanuel College, Ga.

== But to redefine the term, for LDS, God is a job title, not a person

Not at all. He is a person. A man in fact.
2 things here
1. For LDS, God is a job because people can assume the role. Our CEO (GOD) is elohim, or as you guys call him, Heavenly Father.
2. God is not a man
[I]Num 23:19 "God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?

But God was commonly referred to as an authority. This is why the angels in the OT were simply called God.

Called in Hebrew elohim. Why were they called by H.F's name?
the name elohim came from the root el, which means strong. Elohim was a name for anyone who was an authority in the ANE, not HF's personal name. That's why He calls Himself LORD Jehovah.

They came in his authority. To be a God in ancient Judaism simply meant to have immortality.

Sorry, rulers were called elohim too.

They couldn't die. They were not different from Yahweh in kind, only in power. All of the Greek philosophical definitions of God were completely foreign to the ancient Jews - except for omnipotence maybe.

See arguments from David above.

If this were not true, then hellenization would have played no role at all in developing orthodoxy. But it most certainly did, as any scholar will testify. Even Evangelical scholars admit that this is the case, but they simply argue that deriving from Greek influence doesn't mean correct or incorrect. And on this point they are right.

No need to comment here.

The LDS concept of the Godhead is in perfect harmony with the ancient visions of the divine council - ontologically speaking. There is one "Most High" the Father, and several gods who were his children.

The only reference to sons of God I can find refer to created beings (angels) and for the Father to be the Most High, according to Hebrew idiom, there can be no other higher... No heavenly grandpa.

Christ was one of them.
Christ was the only one that was not created. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. In the Beginning, the Spirit of God hovered over the face of the deep. No mention of any thing or any one else existing.

Heavenly Mother was his wife - a Goddess- but we concede that there is no reference to her (unless we accept the references to Asherah).

you would do well not to accept them too.

We hardly ever make reference to her either, but for our own reasons that we believe were shared by the ancients.

So she is not to be worshipped at all? What do women have to look forward to then in Eternity?

== As perfected saints, we will have dominion with Him. You are right to declare that the OT defines one God, but He knows no other who can be called God.

No, context requires a reference to false idols. But even Isaiah doesn't negate the existence of the divine council.

As all other "gods" are false idols. God spells it out plainly that there are no other gods out there at all. Just because someone worships something as a god, does not make it one that God knows. Just as you put below.

Because you can't really know man made idols.

Kevin W. Graham

April 3rd 2003, 04:24 PM

== Actually that was the ISBE. And even by your standards, the mountains were created by God in Genesis, so don't qualify as from everlasting, unless we do as well. According to your theology, so i've been told by my LDS friend, our spirits are older than the mountains because we were born before Gen 1:1.

Correct you are. Indeed, even the priesthood was termed "everlasting." I believe the Law of Moses was also described as everlasting.

== I don't think it's arbitrary in any stretch.

Well, the scholarly consensus was in error until Evangelicals recently came out with updated commentaries? Of course, with no theological slant involved whatsoever? I find this highly unconvincing. Indeed, if everlasting meant "always existed," then it would undermine the need for repetition: "from everlasting to everlasting?"

== LDS do the same thing when we see the anthropomorphic attributes given to God. Eyes, hands, feet, etc.

No we don't. In fact we take them literally, not figuratively. I'm talking about taking the Bible figuratively because it conflicts with a tehological premise. In the case of anthropomorphisms, LDS are far from guilty of that!

== To argue against that I simply call on the Psalms and Deuteronomy. Does God have wings? Is God a consuming fire like a blast furnace? I can say your tossing the latter into anthropomorphism is just as arbitrary. It takes a bit of discernment when someting is being used metaphorically or not. To toss our opinion on the matter aside as arbitrary is nothing short of elitist.

Not at all. Psalms was primarily poetry loaded with allegory and metaphor, so there is very good reason to take these scriptures figuratively. You have to take a verse literally unless you have a good reason to take it figuratively. The only reason Evangelicals offer is that it conflicts with their concept of God, therefore it must be figurative. This is circular reasoning that doesn't work for us. The Bible consistently refers to God anthropomorphically all throughout. Evangelicals have the burden of slapping a figurative label on far more scriptures than need be. And LDS scholarship agrees. But you'll see all of this in my review of chapter 1.

== Well, not in all cases should it be taken literally. See my Psalms reference above. I think we can both agree God doesn't have wings.

Well, think this through for a minute. At some point we have to apply SOME standard if we rely on strict sola scriptura. I mean why not do the same thing with John 4:24. Maybe God really isn't a spirit because, following your reasoning, the Bible also says he has wings. So who gets to decide what is literal and what is figurative? For Evangelicals the idea of God having a body is just as ludicrous as God having wings, therefore they accept it as metaphor. But what Evangelicals think of God has no bearing on what the Bible says, and it certainly has no bearing on how the ancient Jews understood God. They understood God as a MAN, and this language is replete throughout Jewish writings - even though much of it was redacted due to a changing theology.

== No, the orthodox position defines what is figurative and metaphorical, not the other way around.

Dewd, this reasoning is so circular that I'm beginning to get vertigo. Orthodoxy decides what scripture says? Since when on earth did that divine pronouncement take place?? The orthodox position post-dates what the Bible says. The Bible meant something long before orthodoxy came about. Again, this is circular reasoning in the finest sense.

== Whether someone finds it impressive is irrelivant. The argument I made above clearly argues against the literal interpretation of olam being used to refer to mountains, unless it also can be used to refer to us as well, which the Bible clearly speaks against. The mountains are older than man in every aspect.

But they didn't exist forever. You can't import abstract, figurative or even "limited" meanings into a term, based solely on a theological presupposition. Well, you can of course, but it doesn't make an argument successful to those who do not come from such a theological premise. So we agree to disagree.

== This rhetorical question was to show Job's friends that they were not there!!!

Well, I'm not going to get into the preexistence argument. Kevin Barney has already responded to JP's chapter in that issue. Might as well go ahead and make this public: http://www.anti-mormonism-revealed.com/jp3.htm

== How can that be strength of position? Has the LDS printed anything critical of it's own theology? If not, then it's really not relevant who influenced it. To blame BDB for being influenced by orthodoxy is a double edged sword. Everything the LDS puts out is influenced by LDS theology.

Incorrect you are. When did I cite an LDS source?? Do you have any idea how stupid it would be for me to come in this forum, or any forum for that matter, citing LDS scholars alone? This is essentially my point. This position was argued by non-LDS scholars. It cannot be argued that their conclusions are motivated by Mormon presuppositions. This is the strength of our position I believe, because I have yet to engage a debate on any level, with an Evangelical who doesn't cite only Zondervan, Baker House, Bethany, etc. publications.

== You missed the point. Ireneas didn't need to reject the possibility, because he was not talking to Christians. He was talking to Gnostics about their own beliefs.

But it wasn't their belief, it was only a speculation that Iraneus himself didn't flat out reject. To say he didn't reject it because they were Gnostics is to make an assumption without basis. It makes no sense to me. I mean if you were to answer a Mormon's question, "Do you think God's Wife is a blonde or brunette?" Would you say, "Don't worry about such things. WE shouldn't speculate about that stuff" or would you flat out say "God doesn't have a wife you nimrod!" You would answer the question according to truth and according to what you knew, not what would appease the theology of those asking the questions. Iraneus includes himself when he says WE. Iraneus was a Christian, not a Gnostic. Therefore I find it to be no great leap to assume that this concept did not conflict greatly with the Christian norm at the time.

== The divinity of the Son is something we both agree on.

Correct you are. But as sad as it is, the vast majority supported Arius. The council didn't get a fair representation of bishops throughout the Church.

== He sure was labeled that. And with some good reason.

No, with some circular reason. If he had won, you would be the heretic since his followers would have rewritten history and orthodoxy along with it. The fact that Church Fathers as late as the third Century didn't quite have a grasp on their own theology, doesn't evoke confidence in the church fathers as a whole. Many of them waivered from left to right and had their own personal theological evolutions. Tertullian is credited with the term trinitas, yet he ended up being a heretic. Why? Because his predecessors disagreed with him.

== Well, Jesus pretty much kaiboshed that idea. See John 4:24

The common application of this verse is grossly misundertood and out of context, but you'll see an indepth study of this verse in my review. But either way, to have a spirit to the early Christians meant to have a body of spirit. In fact Origen tells us that the Christians were using this verse to prove God was in form.

== God was clear in Isaiah that there were no other who could be called God. All other gods are called false gods.

That isn't what he says, since obviously others were called gods and indeed were gods! There is way too much biblical content before Isaiah that contradicts your interpretation of Isaiah.

== Isa 44:8, Isa 45:6

Out of context again.

== Refers to majesty, like the song of songs. It's an idiom.

Of course it is. Why? Because it conflicts with orthodoxy. And as you said, orthodoxy decides what the Bible means.

== For LDS, God is a job because people can assume the role. Our CEO (GOD) is elohim, or as you guys call him, Heavenly Father.

Funny, we never look at Him that way. God does represent authority, and as I explained, angels who acme in God's stead were called gods or even Yahweh for that reason. The LDS paradigm is consistent with that of Ancient Judaism, and God also refers to an ontological state of being too. It isn't one or the other.

== 2. God is not a man

Context says that he is not man in that he should lie. Meaning, he is not human with moral imperfections. But Yahweh is clearly a man:

Ex 15:3 :"The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name."

== Called in Hebrew elohim. Why were they called by H.F's name? the name elohim came from the root el, which means strong. Elohim was a name for anyone who was an authority in the ANE, not HF's personal name. That's why He calls Himself LORD Jehovah

Wrong. Elohim means God or Gods period! It cannot be correctly translated as judges, rulers, strong person or what not. This has been recently refuted, again, by non-LDS scholarship. The issue isn't really considered worth discussing except in a few Evangelical circles.

== Christ was the only one that was not created. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

Right. Somnething that always exists doesn't have a beginning does it? Christ was the first creation of the Father, so far as his children go. Of course we believe we are all eternal as intelligences but this is all beside teh point that Christ was not always with the Father as His son. Evangelicals get around this with the concept that Christ was
"eternally begotten" which is just more non-biblical jargon used to describe orthodox position.

== In the Beginning, the Spirit of God hovered over the face of the deep. No mention of any thing or any one else existing.

Depends on which version of the creation you want to accept. Gen 1:9 of the MT deletes this segment which is found in the older versions of the OT (LXX/DSS) "And the water which was under the heaven was collected into its places, and the dry land appeared."

== So she is not to be worshipped at all? What do women have to look forward to then in Eternity?

Dewd, are you suggesting that we should look towards the worship of ourselves in the hereafter? I would hope that she is worshipped by the gods in heaven (angels for you), but no mention is made of her on earth because God would not tolerate humans blasphemying her name in vain.

== As all other "gods" are false idols. God spells it out plainly that there are no other gods out there at all. Just because someone worships something as a god, does not make it one that God knows. Just as you put below.

Sorry, but this conclusion comes only by reading the Bible through a straw, and focusing on isolated passages in Isaiah which comes by habit within orthodoxy. That isn't how you get the full message of the bible.

http://www.anti-mormonism-revealed.com/qa.htm

Ok, late for work.

Cheers.

Bill the Cat

April 3rd 2003, 07:07 PM

Today @ 03:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Kevin W. Graham:

[QUOTE]== Actually that was the ISBE. And even by your standards, the mountains were created by God in Genesis, so don't qualify as from everlasting, unless we do as well. According to your theology, so i've been told by my LDS friend, our spirits are older than the mountains because we were born before Gen 1:1.

Correct you are. Indeed, even the priesthood was termed "everlasting." I believe the Law of Moses was also described as everlasting.

Well, I think we must discern which meaning of olam we need here. Both the Law and the mountains (both described as olam) have definite beginnings and a definite end. So if olam means the same for God, then He had a definite beginning and a definite end. This is inconsistent. So we must look to the meaning of olam and realize it means 2 separate things for God and for the created things.

== I don't think it's arbitrary in any stretch.

Well, the scholarly consensus was in error until Evangelicals recently came out with updated commentaries? Of course, with no theological slant involved whatsoever? I find this highly unconvincing. Indeed, if everlasting meant "always existed," then it would undermine the need for repetition: "from everlasting to everlasting?"

There is a theological slant in all religious material. Gordon Fee made a statement that amused me. He said (paraphrased) people can find a scholar for any belief they choose. As I pointed out, olam has separate meanings for separate circumstances.

== LDS do the same thing when we see the anthropomorphic attributes given to God. Eyes, hands, feet, etc.

No we don't. In fact we take them literally, not figuratively. I'm talking about taking the Bible figuratively because it conflicts with a tehological premise. In the case of anthropomorphisms, LDS are far from guilty of that!

Well, it is not consistent with Jewish ANE sources, albeit they did believe in an anthropomorphic God, He was enormous.

from http://faculty.biu.ac.il/~barilm/handofgd.html

It should not be overlooked that this gigantic figure of God is not a new idea, and was not first suggested in the days of the Talmud. It has already been stated above that according to the Bible God has a bow; that is, the rainbow. Since that is unquestionably gigantic, it is only reasonable that God who shot with it is a giant as well. The same idea is derived from the prophet who spoke the words of God: 'Heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool' (Isa 66:1). It is clear that if the colossal sky is the throne of God, the size of God who sits on it is beyond any imagination. Thus it is clear that the gigantic figure of God which is known from a relatively late period is not such a great innovation. The fact is that there is no evidence of speculation as to the size of God in Biblical times, but rather a phenomenon that is known from the Talmudic period where rabbis claimed to know the exact measurements of God. These measurements even turned out to be exaggerated (millions of miles), exceeding the great figure of God in Biblical times. However, the core of the idea of a gigantic figure of God was well known in ancient times, and the interpretation of the sages based on a God who 'marked off the heavens with a span' go hand in hand with the same assumption. That is, the sky is as big as the small finger of God, so it is logical that the full figure of God is many times bigger than the whole sky. [I]J. Dan, The Ancient Jewish Mysticism, Ministry of Defence, Tel Aviv 1989, pp. 48-58 (Hebrew). [I]

So if Mormonism accurately reflects ANE jewish thought, is God that huge?

To argue against that I simply call on the Psalms and Deuteronomy. Does God have wings? Is God a consuming fire like a blast furnace? I can say your tossing the latter into anthropomorphism is just as arbitrary. It takes a bit of discernment when someting is being used metaphorically or not. To toss our opinion on the matter aside as arbitrary is nothing short of elitist.

Not at all. Psalms was primarily poetry loaded with allegory and metaphor, so there is very good reason to take these scriptures figuratively. You have to take a verse literally unless you have a good reason to take it figuratively. The only reason Evangelicals offer is that it conflicts with their concept of God, therefore it must be figurative. This is circular reasoning that doesn't work for us. The Bible consistently refers to God anthropomorphically all throughout. Evangelicals have the burden of slapping a figurative label on far more scriptures than need be. And LDS scholarship agrees. But you'll see all of this in my review of chapter 1.

So do you believe God's finger is as big as the universe?

== Well, not in all cases should it be taken literally. See my Psalms reference above. I think we can both agree God doesn't have wings.

Well, think this through for a minute. At some point we have to apply SOME standard if we rely on strict sola scriptura. I mean why not do the same thing with John 4:24. Maybe God really isn't a spirit because, following your reasoning, the Bible also says he has wings. So who gets to decide what is literal and what is figurative? For Evangelicals the idea of God having a body is just as ludicrous as God having wings, therefore they accept it as metaphor. But what Evangelicals think of God has no bearing on what the Bible says, and it certainly has no bearing on how the ancient Jews understood God. They understood God as a MAN, and this language is replete throughout Jewish writings - even though much of it was redacted due to a changing theology.

In the well-known fragments B14-16, Xenophanes comments on the general tendency of human beings to conceive of divine beings in human form:

But mortals suppose that gods are born,
wear their own clothers and have a voice and body. (B14)

Ethiopians say that their gods are snub-nosed and black;
Thracians that theirs are are blue-eyed and red-haired. (B16)

B15 adds, probably in a satirical vein, that if horses and oxen had hands and could draw pictures, their gods would look remarkably like horses and oxen.

It is common for people to think of God anthropomorphically. Does this mean He has a body like ours? Not necessarily. It is all we can conceive.

== No, the orthodox position defines what is figurative and metaphorical, not the other way around.

Dewd, this reasoning is so circular that I'm beginning to get vertigo.

Go merry go rounds!!!

Orthodoxy decides what scripture says? Since when on earth did that divine pronouncement take place?? The orthodox position post-dates what the Bible says. The Bible meant something long before orthodoxy came about. Again, this is circular reasoning in the finest sense.

The appointed people of the time of the disciples and their students defined what the ambiguous things not recorded in writing meant. The disciples could not fathom every exception to scripture and refute it, so that's what orthodoxy did. When an abberant idea came about, the orthodoxy took care of it and showed it's error.

Sorry, the wife's here to pick me up. More later. Chus!!

Kevin W. Graham

April 4th 2003, 04:33 PM

== Well, I think we must discern which meaning of olam we need here. Both the Law and the mountains (both described as olam) have definite beginnings and a definite end. So if olam means the same for God, then He had a definite beginning and a definite end. This is inconsistent. So we must look to the meaning of olam and realize it means 2 separate things for God and for the created things.

Dewd, you're doing it again. This is the fallacy of apriorism. It relies on thge assumption that olam means something entirely different with reference to God, simply because it conflicts with your theological model of God. To me it makes more sense that it is your theological model, not the Hebrew meaning of olam, which is ambiguous. It makes more sense tha olam mean one thing consistently - despite theological influence. Now there is absolutely no reason why the scholarly concensus would suggest olam was "limited" unless of course the source for this scholarship was atheistic or LDS. Where on earth was their theological bias in this instance?

In the end you're rejecting the already established meaning of olam, in preference of an "updated" extension of the meaning which coincidentally conforms to Evangelical presuppostions. To say the least, this is suspicious. But given your (baseless) premise that orthodoxy has the right to declare what the Bible says, (arbitrarily apparently) I can see why you wouldn't have a problem with Evangelical scholarship rewriting the consensus to suit its agenda. When it encounters a speed bump or pothole in the Bible, just update what it "really means" in the next publication. If the LDS tried doing this stuff you guys would be all over us.

== There is a theological slant in all religious material. Gordon Fee made a statement that amused me. He said (paraphrased) people can find a scholar for any belief they choose. As I pointed out, olam has separate meanings for separate circumstances.

Sorry but it doesn't. Only recently did we learn that, according toa recent Evangelical production, olam had a hidden meaning all this time. How convenient.

== Well, it is not consistent with Jewish ANE sources, albeit they did believe in an anthropomorphic God, He was enormous.

Yes, some of the later midrashic sources say as much, but this is beside the point. The fact is they believed God had a body. We believe God has a body. You guys don't believe God has a body. The extra details in reference to His size, His nostrils, His hair color or whatever, is irrelevant really. They understood Gen 1:26 (Image of God) to mean exactly what it says. Orthdoxy ended up reading abtract meanings into this, and later Judaism, while being ridiculed for believing in an embodied God, followed suit.

Anyway, I touch upon this subject in my review.

== In the well-known fragments B14-16, Xenophanes comments on the general tendency of human beings to conceive of divine beings in human form:

Funny you should mention Xenophanes. He is the Greek philosopher who LDS scholars usually cite as the source of the apostasy of this doctrine. This is like proving the Trinity false by citing Arius as proof.

== It is common for people to think of God anthropomorphically. Does this mean He has a body like ours? Not necessarily. It is all we can conceive.

No I think it isn't common at all. People usually think of God as an unembodied spirit. But the earliest Jews and earliest Christians didn't. And for good reason. Shouldn't what they think matter somewhat?

== Go merry go rounds!!!

Weeeeeeeeee....

== The appointed people of the time of the disciples and their students defined what the ambiguous things not recorded in writing meant.

"Ambiguous things not recorded in writing?" I'm talking about unambiguous things iwhich are found in writing. And no, there are no writings by "appointed" men who interpreted the scriptures for us. If you really want to accept this as true, then you're going to have all sorts of heartache over their interpretation of Ps 82:6. And you're going to have all sorts of problems with Evangelicals who assume a strict sola scriptura doctrine - meaning no need for any organization to interpret the scriptures for them. Namely Catholicism. But then again, you may be a Catholic, I don't know.

== The disciples could not fathom every exception to scripture and refute it, so that's what orthodoxy did.

Orthodoxy assumed a problem, so it therefore created an unneeded solution. This in every instance where the scripture failed to support their philosophical musings.

== When an abberant idea came about, the orthodoxy took care of it and showed it's error.

These abberant ideas came from scripture which predate orthodoxy. Only then were they defined as abberant.

Take your time responding to the rest of my previous post. I'm in no hurry.

jpholding

April 4th 2003, 04:50 PM

Just stopping by to make sure Kevin is behaving himself. :brow: Looks like he hasn't unpacked any of the Whoopee Wham yet. :thumb: How's Kuhkee, bud? I think I got the Tobester back up to weight. Hey, if you can, post that pic of Kuhkee's dig to China.

Kevin W. Graham

April 4th 2003, 05:12 PM

I tried to put in in my permanent icon, but apparently I have to score enough "points" before it allows me to do so. Or am I missing a certain trick?

I'll try attaching it as a file and see what happens.

Kevin W. Graham

April 4th 2003, 05:17 PM

Ok, now we can have some fun. This is my wife and I last month at Disney.

Kevin W. Graham

April 4th 2003, 05:28 PM

Anyway, I really need to get Kuhkee a boyfriend so she will stop humping everything in sight. But I'm not sure if we can handle another Tornado, er, um... I mean Jack Russell Terror - I mean Terrier.

You remember that apartment I had before? That was hell with Kuhkee. When I got married we moved to a house with a big back yard and it is still too small for her. Everyone told us JRT's need room to run around and hunt stuff. They are "working dogs" they say. She insists on hunting anything and everything now. Constantly digging holes in everyone's yard, bringing us presents to our front porch. She is averaging 5 moles per week now, and last month she had it out with a racoon.

They are supposed to be among the smartest dogs, so I tried training her to do some tricks - I should have done this before. She now knows how to shake hands. I swear, I taught her in 5 minutes and she did it on her 7th attempt. Amazing!

The vet said JRT's know what we want them to do but we have to make them WANT to do it. They are stubborn. I went through two cans of sardines in her training.

Now my wife has her understanding commands in Portugese. :no:

Now I have to explain, somehow, to my Mother-in-law in Brazil, why my dog knows more Portugese than I do! :rofl:

Bill the Cat

April 4th 2003, 06:30 PM

== Whether someone finds it impressive is irrelivant. The argument I made above clearly argues against the literal interpretation of olam being used to refer to mountains, unless it also can be used to refer to us as well, which the Bible clearly speaks against. The mountains are older than man in every aspect.

But they didn't exist forever. You can't import abstract, figurative or even "limited" meanings into a term, based solely on a theological presupposition. Well, you can of course, but it doesn't make an argument successful to those who do not come from such a theological premise. So we agree to disagree.

And once again, either we import a meaning for olam to just mean a long time, or it has a dual meaning. The mountains and the priesthood had a definite beginning and will have a definite end. God has neither.

== This rhetorical question was to show Job's friends that they were not there!!!

Well, I'm not going to get into the preexistence argument. Kevin Barney has already responded to JP's chapter in that issue. Might as well go ahead and make this public: http://www.anti-mormonism-revealed.com/jp3.htm

Well, I disagree with several assumptions Kevin made and I think he stretched some sources too. But I'll let JP handle that article. Does he know it's there? I'd love to see his response.
Also I think he ignores the 3 verses that follow Job 38:4

== How can that be strength of position? Has the LDS printed anything critical of it's own theology? If not, then it's really not relevant who influenced it. To blame BDB for being influenced by orthodoxy is a double edged sword. Everything the LDS puts out is influenced by LDS theology.

Incorrect you are. When did I cite an LDS source?? Do you have any idea how stupid it would be for me to come in this forum, or any forum for that matter, citing LDS scholars alone? This is essentially my point. This position was argued by non-LDS scholars. It cannot be argued that their conclusions are motivated by Mormon presuppositions. This is the strength of our position I believe, because I have yet to engage a debate on any level, with an Evangelical who doesn't cite only Zondervan, Baker House, Bethany, etc. publications.

Well, you quoted Bickmore. I have quoted John Gill, Adam Clark, Albert Barnes, John Wesley, Irenaes, and a host of others that have no affiliation with Zondervan or Bethany House. I also am fond of dictionary.com

== You missed the point. Ireneas didn't need to reject the possibility, because he was not talking to Christians. He was talking to Gnostics about their own beliefs.

But it wasn't their belief, it was only a speculation that Iraneus himself didn't flat out reject. To say he didn't reject it because they were Gnostics is to make an assumption without basis. It makes no sense to me. I mean if you were to answer a Mormon's question, "Do you think God's Wife is a blonde or brunette?" Would you say, "Don't worry about such things. WE shouldn't speculate about that stuff" or would you flat out say "God doesn't have a wife you nimrod!" You would answer the question according to truth and according to what you knew, not what would appease the theology of those asking the questions. Iraneus includes himself when he says WE. Iraneus was a Christian, not a Gnostic. Therefore I find it to be no great leap to assume that this concept did not conflict greatly with the Christian norm at the time.

Once again we need to look at the target audiences. Irenaes was giving it to the gnostics for pushing an idea that the Father was an emmanition of the pleroma. HE also wrote it for the benefit of the weaker minded Christians as I quoted from the preface. For Irenaes to postulate an idea on the origin of GOd would have confused the weak christians further. Oh and Irenaes was not asked by the gnostics if he thought that there were aeons. They were fooling the weaker Christians into thinking there was 'higher knowledge" available in their midst. Irenaes was saying not to bother thinking about their "higher knowledge" and that it was better letting God worry about it. He didn't confirm God had a dad, but Joseph Smith did as well as successive LDS authorities.

== The divinity of the Son is something we both agree on.

Correct you are. But as sad as it is, the vast majority supported Arius. The council didn't get a fair representation of bishops throughout the Church.

Still doesn't mean Arius was right.

== He sure was labeled that. And with some good reason.

No, with some circular reason. If he had won, you would be the heretic since his followers would have rewritten history and orthodoxy along with it.

Are we referring to Origen or Arius? the article was about Origen.

The fact that Church Fathers as late as the third Century didn't quite have a grasp on their own theology, doesn't evoke confidence in the church fathers as a whole. Many of them waivered from left to right and had their own personal theological evolutions. Tertullian is credited with the term trinitas, yet he ended up being a heretic. Why? Because his predecessors disagreed with him.

That's why I try not to put too much stock in what they believed. Each one had some ideas that disagreed with each other.

== Well, Jesus pretty much kaiboshed that idea. See John 4:24

The common application of this verse is grossly misundertood and out of context, but you'll see an indepth study of this verse in my review. But either way, to have a spirit to the early Christians meant to have a body of spirit. In fact Origen tells us that the Christians were using this verse to prove God was in form.

Well, I disagree because the phrase used is similar to others used.
God is spirit. Spirit is the emphatic word; Spirit is God. The phrase describes the nature, not the personality of God. Compare the expressions, God is light; God is love (1Jo_1:5; 1Jo_4:8).
Vincent's Word Studies Marvin R. Vincent, D.D.
Baldwin Professor of Sacred Literature in Union Theological Seminary New York.

Once again, I put little faith in Origen because he couldn't decide which way he wanted to go in his theology.

== God was clear in Isaiah that there were no other who could be called God. All other gods are called false gods.

That isn't what he says, since obviously others were called gods and indeed were gods! There is way too much biblical content before Isaiah that contradicts your interpretation of Isaiah.

But they were not gods. How is it my interpretation? The text speaks clearly. The Geneva Bible Commentary says :

Isa 44:8 - Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared [it]? (l) ye [are] even my witnesses. Is there a God besides me? verily, [there is] no God; I know not [any]. 1599 Geneva Bible Translation Notes Note this was from 1599, so no evangelical bias was present. It also references 43:10.
Isa 43:10 "You are My witnesses," declares the LORD, "And My servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and believe Me And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me.
Isa 43:11 "I, even I, am the LORD, And there is no savior besides Me.

And in context the chapter discusses, as Albert Barnes says:
II. God asserts his superiority to all idol-gods. He makes a solemn appeal, as he had done in Isa. 41, to show that the idols had no power; and refers to all that he had predicted and to its fulfillment in proof that he was the only true God, and had been faithful to his people Isa_43:8-13. In doing this, he says:
1. That none of the idols had been able to predict future events Isa_43:8-9.
2. That the Jewish people were his witnesses that he was the true God, and the only Saviour Isa_43:10-12.
3. That he had existed forever, and that none could thwart his designs Isa_43:13.

== Isa 44:8, Isa 45:6

Out of context again.

I disagree. the context of Chapter 44 is
II. An argument to show that Yahweh was the true God; and a severe and most sarcastic reproof of idolatry - designed to reprove idolaters, and to lead the people to put their confidence in Yahweh Isa_44:6-20. This argument consists of the following parts -
1. A solemn assertion of Yahweh himself, that there was no other God Isa_44:6.
2. An appeal to the fact that he only had foretold future events, and that he only could do it Isa_44:7-8.
3. A sarcastic statement of the manner in which idols were made, and of course, the folly of worshipping them Isa_44:9-20.

and Chapter 45
IV. God vindicates his own character; and calls on the nations of idolaters to come and compare the claims of idols with him, and especially appeals, in proof that he is God, to his power of predicting future evcnts Isa_45:18-21.
V. The chapter closes by a call on all nations to trust in him in view of the fact that he is the only true God; and with an assurance that all should yet trust in him, and that the true religion should yet spread over the world Isa_45:22-25. This is designed further to comfort the people of God in their exile, and is a striking prophecy of the final universal prevalence of the gospel.

== Refers to majesty, like the song of songs. It's an idiom.

Of course it is. Why? Because it conflicts with orthodoxy. And as you said, orthodoxy decides what the Bible means.

I didn't say it conflicts with orthodoxy, you merely asserted I did. God of Gods from Deut 10:17 means:
Moses describes Jehovah the God of Israel as the “God of gods,” i.e., the supreme God, the essence of all that is divine, of all divine power and might (cf. Psa_136:2), - and as the “Lord of lords,” i.e., the supreme, unrestricted Ruler (“the only Potentate,” 1Ti_6:15), above all powers in heaven and on earth, “a great King above all gods” (Psa_95:3). Compare Rev_17:14 and Rev_19:16, where these predicates are transferred to the exalted Son of God, as the Judge and Conqueror of all dominions and powers that are hostile to God.
Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

It is not saying that there are other true gods, but that anything that anyone assumes is called god is subject to Him.

== For LDS, God is a job because people can assume the role. Our CEO (GOD) is elohim, or as you guys call him, Heavenly Father.

Funny, we never look at Him that way. God does represent authority, and as I explained, angels who acme in God's stead were called gods or even Yahweh for that reason. The LDS paradigm is consistent with that of Ancient Judaism, and God also refers to an ontological state of being too. It isn't one or the other.

No, Angels were never called Yahweh. And I got this description of the term "God" being a job title from a bishop who is my mormon friend's father in law. But what I'm saying is that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young called H.F Elohim and said that elohim was his name. Talmage in Jesus the Christ reiterates it on p. 38

== 2. God is not a man

Context says that he is not man in that he should lie. Meaning, he is not human with moral imperfections. But Yahweh is clearly a man:

Ex 15:3 :"The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name."

Well, I must go LDS on this one. LORD is Jehovah (Jesus) not Elohim. The passage from Numbers says Elohim is not a man.

== Called in Hebrew elohim. Why were they called by H.F's name? the name elohim came from the root el, which means strong. Elohim was a name for anyone who was an authority in the ANE, not HF's personal name. That's why He calls Himself LORD Jehovah

Wrong. Elohim means God or Gods period! It cannot be correctly translated as judges, rulers, strong person or what not. This has been recently refuted, again, by non-LDS scholarship. The issue isn't really considered worth discussing except in a few Evangelical circles.

Well, I stand corrected in a way. Elohim is actually not god either.
from http://www.houseofsteed.com/shofar/articles/elohim.htm
So what does Elohim mean? Well it is quite easily established that Elohim is the plural of Eloah - this is of course the word that is Allah in Arabic. In regard to the meaning of this word Strongs says, “probably prolonged (emphat.) from 410.” 410 is El, but notice it uses the word “probably” - what this really means is that they don’t know! The more likely candidate is

Strongs #422 - “‘Alah { aw-law’} a primitive root; TWOT - 94; v AV - swear 4, curse 1, adjure 1; 6 GK - 457 { hl;a;
1) to swear, curse
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to swear, take an oath (before God)
1a2) to curse
1b) (Hiphil)
1b1) to put under oath, adjure
1b2) to put under a curse.”

This might sound strange at first, but if you stop and consider, it makes quite a lot of sense. What it means is that Eloah would mean “Sworn One,” or “One who is under an Oath.” Or in particular reference to YHWH -“Covenanted One.” Elohim is of course the plural of this - and the plurality may refer to the oaths, not the persons -hence “One who is under Oaths”

Now consider how YHWH uses the word "Elohim":

“Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, YHWH, the Elohim of your fathers, the Elohim of Abraham, the Elohim of Isaac, and the Elohim of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations. Ex.3:15

YHWH had sworn oaths - made covenants - with all three individuals mentioned, so He is indeed their Sworn One!

“I am YHWH your Elohim, who brought you out of the land of Mitsrayim (Egypt), out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other elohim before me.” Ex 20:2-3.

YHWH was in the process of making a covenant with all of Israel, infact entering into a marriage covenant with them. He and He alone was to be their “Sworn One!”

Still doesn't handle how LDS authorities have said that elohim was H.F.'s name like Jehovah was Jesus'

== Christ was the only one that was not created. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

Right. Somnething that always exists doesn't have a beginning does it?
Right you are.

Christ was the first creation of the Father, so far as his children go.
Nope. Everything that was created, EVERYTHING, was created by Jesus Christ. So Jesus was not created, or this statement is false.

Of course we believe we are all eternal as intelligences but this is all beside teh point that Christ was not always with the Father as His son. Evangelicals get around this with the concept that Christ was "eternally begotten" which is just more non-biblical jargon used to describe orthodox position.

How is it non biblical to say He was never created? The Bible says that all things that were created were created by Him.
Col 1:15 And He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Col 1:16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him.
Col 1:17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

I think LDS have to go to non biblical jargon to talk about "spirit babies"

== In the Beginning, the Spirit of God hovered over the face of the deep. No mention of any thing or any one else existing.

Depends on which version of the creation you want to accept. Gen 1:9 of the MT deletes this segment which is found in the older versions of the OT (LXX/DSS) "And the water which was under the heaven was collected into its places, and the dry land appeared."

Actually I was referring to Gen 1:2 not 1:9 where it uses the term Ruach Elohim. The Spirit was there at Creation.

== So she is not to be worshipped at all? What do women have to look forward to then in Eternity?

Dewd, are you suggesting that we should look towards the worship of ourselves in the hereafter? I would hope that she is worshipped by the gods in heaven (angels for you), but no mention is made of her on earth because God would not tolerate humans blasphemying her name in vain.

I am not suggesting that anyone be worshipped. It is a consequence of being God. God is worshipped and when you become a god, you will be worshipped, but your wife will not. That's all i am getting at. The overall point I was making is that if H.M. is a goddess, why is she not listed in the first article of faith?

== As all other "gods" are false idols. God spells it out plainly that there are no other gods out there at all. Just because someone worships something as a god, does not make it one that God knows. Just as you put below.

Sorry, but this conclusion comes only by reading the Bible through a straw, and focusing on isolated passages in Isaiah which comes by habit within orthodoxy. That isn't how you get the full message of the bible.

No, it comes from reconciling all of the texts. The article linked below by you seems to indicate these three men believe that jewish religion was a developed social concept, and not a divine revealed institution. They compare the development of monotheism to the development of the worship of Ashtoreth and Chemosh and other national deities. I really don't see how this article bears any relevance on the Biblical understanding of the Hebrew religion.

http://www.anti-mormonism-revealed.com/qa.htm

Bill the Cat

April 4th 2003, 07:30 PM

Today @ 03:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Kevin W. Graham:

[QUOTE]== Well, I think we must discern which meaning of olam we need here. Both the Law and the mountains (both described as olam) have definite beginnings and a definite end. So if olam means the same for God, then He had a definite beginning and a definite end. This is inconsistent. So we must look to the meaning of olam and realize it means 2 separate things for God and for the created things.

Dewd, you're doing it again. This is the fallacy of apriorism. It relies on thge assumption that olam means something entirely different with reference to God, simply because it conflicts with your theological model of God. To me it makes more sense that it is your theological model, not the Hebrew meaning of olam, which is ambiguous. It makes more sense tha olam mean one thing consistently - despite theological influence. Now there is absolutely no reason why the scholarly concensus would suggest olam was "limited" unless of course the source for this scholarship was atheistic or LDS. Where on earth was their theological bias in this instance?

So if olam means the same for the mountains as it does for God, God will have a definite end. Yes or no? :huh:

In the end you're rejecting the already established meaning of olam, in preference of an "updated" extension of the meaning which coincidentally conforms to Evangelical presuppostions. To say the least, this is suspicious. But given your (baseless) premise that orthodoxy has the right to declare what the Bible says, (arbitrarily apparently) I can see why you wouldn't have a problem with Evangelical scholarship rewriting the consensus to suit its agenda. When it encounters a speed bump or pothole in the Bible, just update what it "really means" in the next publication. If the LDS tried doing this stuff you guys would be all over us.

Well I think I misstated orthodoxy so we don't quite mean the same thing. What I claim as orthodoxy is an idea that was challenged by the likes of the Montanists claiming Montanus was the paraclete, or the gnostics claiming Jesus was the 30th aeon, or Arius claiming Jesus was not divine. That is what I am referring to. In relation to orthodoxy like the Trinity, I don't claim it as part of orthodoxy proper, but I do support it.

== There is a theological slant in all religious material. Gordon Fee made a statement that amused me. He said (paraphrased) people can find a scholar for any belief they choose. As I pointed out, olam has separate meanings for separate circumstances.

Sorry but it doesn't. Only recently did we learn that, according toa recent Evangelical production, olam had a hidden meaning all this time. How convenient.

So you answered my question. God will have an end just like the Mountains will. As long as we define that.

== Well, it is not consistent with Jewish ANE sources, albeit they did believe in an anthropomorphic God, He was enormous.

Yes, some of the later midrashic sources say as much, but this is beside the point. The fact is they believed God had a body. We believe God has a body. You guys don't believe God has a body. The extra details in reference to His size, His nostrils, His hair color or whatever, is irrelevant really. They understood Gen 1:26 (Image of God) to mean exactly what it says. Orthdoxy ended up reading abtract meanings into this, and later Judaism, while being ridiculed for believing in an embodied God, followed suit.

Of course they did. Do you think they would think of God as a chicken? Or a Raven ? or part human, part animal??They believed God had a body bigger than the Universe. That is substantially different from your idea of a bodily God. ANd imagine the size of those toenail clippings!!!! :rofl:

== In the well-known fragments B14-16, Xenophanes comments on the general tendency of human beings to conceive of divine beings in human form:

Funny you should mention Xenophanes. He is the Greek philosopher who LDS scholars usually cite as the source of the apostasy of this doctrine. This is like proving the Trinity false by citing Arius as proof.

The only reason I did was because his name looked cool. No just kidding. It shows how the Jewish mind could conceive of God being like them. I also looked up the hebrew elohim and found it associated with Ashtoreth as well, so could Elohim (H.F.) be female too?

== It is common for people to think of God anthropomorphically. Does this mean He has a body like ours? Not necessarily. It is all we can conceive.

No I think it isn't common at all. People usually think of God as an unembodied spirit. But the earliest Jews and earliest Christians didn't. And for good reason. Shouldn't what they think matter somewhat?

By that logic, God's finger is bigger than the universe. Sorry, it just doesn't add up. The ancient Jews may have thought of God as having a body, but He clearly does not, or He is too enormous to be seen in one glimpse. Darn those toenails!!

== The appointed people of the time of the disciples and their students defined what the ambiguous things not recorded in writing meant.

"Ambiguous things not recorded in writing?" I'm talking about unambiguous things iwhich are found in writing. And no, there are no writings by "appointed" men who interpreted the scriptures for us. If you really want to accept this as true, then you're going to have all sorts of heartache over their interpretation of Ps 82:6. And you're going to have all sorts of problems with Evangelicals who assume a strict sola scriptura doctrine - meaning no need for any organization to interpret the scriptures for them. Namely Catholicism. But then again, you may be a Catholic, I don't know.

And I'm talking about people like Montanus
"I am the Father, the Word, and the Paraclete," said Montanus (Didymus, "De Trin.", III, xli); and again: "I am the Lord God omnipotent, who have descended into to man", and "neither an angel, nor an ambassador, but I, the Lord, the Father, am come" (Epiphanius, "Hær.", xlviii, 11)

== The disciples could not fathom every exception to scripture and refute it, so that's what orthodoxy did.

Orthodoxy assumed a problem, so it therefore created an unneeded solution. This in every instance where the scripture failed to support their philosophical musings.

So you think Montanus was right? How about the Gnostics of Irenaes? It tackled problems like these listed.

== When an abberant idea came about, the orthodoxy took care of it and showed it's error.

These abberant ideas came from scripture which predate orthodoxy. Only then were they defined as abberant.

So Gnosticism came from scripture?

Take your time responding to the rest of my previous post. I'm in no hurry.

Good, cause I tend to get busy here at work and I also have the weekend coming up where I need to be with my kids. :thumb:

Oh yeah, cool dog!! JRT's are quite the handfull, huh?

Bill the Cat

April 4th 2003, 07:37 PM

Hey, Kevin. Thanks for the invigorating debate. I love it when my little brain is taxed to make my ideas congeal. Just sitting around in Church talking to the pew sitters is so boring to me. "What does the Pastor mean by God is love?" and questions like that. :argh: :bonk:

jpholding

April 4th 2003, 09:12 PM

Yo dewd,

I tried to put in in my permanent icon, but apparently I have to score enough "points" before it allows me to do so. Or am I missing a certain trick?

I think ya need 50 posts for an avatar. You're close.

Should I tell everyone you NORMALLY wear a hat like that? :brow:

Good night.

phantaz sunlyk

April 5th 2003, 05:37 PM

**8** say hey Kevin, may the peace of Christ be with you--

From this statement of Irenaeus, we may conclude that 1) there were some Christians who DID believe there was a God above God, and 2) the idea of it wasn't totally antithetical to Irenaeus' conception of God - he just didn't think it was proper to speculate about such things.

**7** this is a severe overstatement. see 2:1:1-2.
by the by, you won't have to worry about me trying to toss up Mormon claims, taken out of context, in order to try and paint the LDS into a corner. as a Catholic, this quite often happens to me, and i find it extremely tedious.
anyways, may God bless you. peace.

Bill the Cat

April 8th 2003, 12:45 AM

Phantaz, I used to be a catholic too. I try not to toss up the usual crap like Adam/God or Joseph Smith's masonic roots. I try to stay with the outright doctrinal errors. And thanks for the ref from Against Heresies. I haven't had time to read the whole thing yet, but I'm up to book 2

Bill the Cat

April 8th 2003, 02:48 AM

Kevin,
Are you a Utah Mormon or a Strangite? Need to know where you're coming from.

Kevin W. Graham

April 8th 2003, 01:22 PM

== And once again, either we import a meaning for olam to just mean a long time, or it has a dual meaning. The mountains and the priesthood had a definite beginning and will have a definite end. God has neither.

Again you assume two things here: 1) olam has dual meaning and 2) God has neither. We can agree to disagree, but what is certain is this: the LDS view cannot be criticized when its view is also supported. It doesn't rely on a strictly LDS source that decided to "update" the meaning. The same cannot be said for the orthodox Christian viewpoint.

=== Well, I disagree with several assumptions Kevin made and I think he stretched some sources too. But I'll let JP handle that article. Does he know it's there? I'd love to see his response.

I doubt JP disagrees with it as much as you do. He knows its there, and if memory serves well, he said it was "perfect." Barney knows his stuff.

== Well, you quoted Bickmore. I have quoted John Gill, Adam Clark, Albert Barnes, John Wesley, Irenaes, and a host of others that have no affiliation with Zondervan or Bethany House. I also am fond of dictionary.com

I quoted Bickmore who quoted Iraneus. I'm not relying on LDS scholarship to prove an LDS view since it is not the LDS view that Iraneus believed God could have a Father. We'll have to agree to disagree on the Iraneus quote. He obviously includes himself in the "we" so I believe this implies it was not a concept alien to Christian thought (Iraneus was a Christian). Regardless of the audience, he included himself. You haven't explained how my analogy makes sense if the audience somehow changes the logical implication.

== Still doesn't mean Arius was right.

True. But it proves that Athanasius won by the hair of his chinny chin chin. Why was Arius winning so strongly if the overall Church thought he was a heretic? This is my point. The Church as a whole leaned against the Nicean philosophy as proposed by Athanasius. Those bishops who disagreed with the outcome were exiled.

== Well, I disagree because the phrase used is similar to others used.

Exactly, and each phrase refers to God's mode of action. In this case it is communication. God is not ONLY spirit anymore than he is ONLY light or ONLY love. In my review I cite several scholarly sources that refute the common orthodox interpretation of this verse.

== Once again, I put little faith in Origen because he couldn't decide which way he wanted to go in his theology.

Name one church father that didn't move back and forth on theological positions.

== But they were not gods. How is it my interpretation? The text speaks clearly. The Geneva Bible Commentary says :

It appears to simply cite the verse and understand it aside from its context.

== And in context the chapter discusses, as Albert Barnes says:

I don't disagree with this actually. Being the One True God doesn't mean only God in existence. It is simply another way of saying the Most High God, or else Christ would be excluded. John 17:3 "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. " Your understanding the verse to speak of the nonexistence of deities altogether which is completely alien from both the context of Isaiah and the context of the entire OT. The issue here was Yahweh's superiorority over those false gods that were worshipped via idols. 1 Thess 1:9 seems to refer to this distinction as well. The "true God" is always compared to the non-existent idols gods, not those gods who exist in the divine council. Too much theology is being read into Isaiah I believe, and this cannot be done without bypassing the overall context.

== I didn't say it conflicts with orthodoxy, you merely asserted I did. God of Gods from Deut 10:17 means: Moses describes Jehovah the God of Israel as the “God of gods,” i.e., the supreme God, the essence of all that is divine, of all divine power and might (cf. Psa_136:2), - and as the “Lord of lords,” i.e., the supreme, unrestricted Ruler (“the only Potentate,” 1Ti_6:15), above all powers in heaven and on earth, “a great King above all gods” (Psa_95:3). Compare Rev_17:14 and Rev_19:16, where these predicates are transferred to the exalted Son of God, as the Judge and Conqueror of all dominions and powers that are hostile to God. Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

None of this logically follows unless other gods exist. The above commentary is just spin, in an attempt to downplay the obvious meaning. Hence, it conflicts with orthodoxy. You're relying solely upon the texts of Isaiah to prove the earliest concept of Judaism.

== No, Angels were never called Yahweh.

I never said they were, but we believe Yahweh and Elohim are distinct from one another and that through time the two became emerged as one. Recent textual evidence supports this actually, as non-LDS scholars argue that the Father God of ancient Israel was El Elyon and Yahweh was one of his children.

== And I got this description of the term "God" being a job title from a bishop who is my mormon friend's father in law. But what I'm saying is that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young called H.F Elohim and said that elohim was his name. Talmage in Jesus the Christ reiterates it on p. 38

I suppose it does include a fucntion, but it certainly isn't the only meaning behind God.

== Well, I must go LDS on this one. LORD is Jehovah (Jesus) not Elohim. The passage from Numbers says Elohim is not a man.

You're joking right?

== Still doesn't handle how LDS authorities have said that elohim was H.F.'s name like Jehovah was Jesus'

This is a red herring that doesn't deal with the passage. The concept of Jehovah being Yahweh and the Father Elohim is vaguely supported in the text, but this doesn't sole your problem in the slightest: God is still called a man! And you're not going to get far with STRONGS on this one either. STRONGS also says elohim means ruler or judges. Which is false.

== Right you are.

Right. So if he doesn't have a beginning then how can he be the beginning of anything?

== Nope. Everything that was created, EVERYTHING, was created by Jesus Christ. So Jesus was not created, or this statement is false.

That is not how teh text was meant to be understood. A strictly literal interpretation of this demands that Christ created his own Father too. Saying it excludes thsi because God is uncreated begs the question.

== How is it non biblical to say He was never created? The Bible says that all things that were created were created by Him.

The text also says all things are reconciled by Him. Are they?

== I think LDS have to go to non biblical jargon to talk about "spirit babies"

Actually, I've made no mention of spirit babies. And I only hear this phrase from LDS critics.

== I am not suggesting that anyone be worshipped. It is a consequence of being God.

Says who?

== God is worshipped and when you become a god, you will be worshipped, but your wife will not. That's all i am getting at.

And you're basing this theory on what exactly?

== The overall point I was making is that if H.M. is a goddess, why is she not listed in the first article of faith?

Because we don't worship her. This isn't to say she is unworthy of worship, or that she doesn't receive worship in heaven. It is only to say that her existence has been suppressed to a great extent in the OT and only to a mild extent in the LDS faith. We acknowledge her exietence, but we acknowledge that she has no role in ruling the earth. What her role is exactly is a mystery to us. Her extistence being suppressed has nothing to do with her inferiority to the others, but everything to do with her uniqueness among them.

== No, it comes from reconciling all of the texts. The article linked below by you seems to indicate these three men believe that jewish religion was a developed social concept, and not a divine revealed institution.

Ah, so you admit bias? Good for you. But you beg the question.

But I see no admission in these men at all. It is possible toa ccept the Bibel as revealed and inspired without denying the redcation processes that have been thoroughly proven through manuscript and literary evidences.

== They compare the development of monotheism to the development of the worship of Ashtoreth and Chemosh and other national deities. I really don't see how this article bears any relevance on the Biblical understanding of the Hebrew religion.

These men are top-notch scholars who know the Bible and its history better than you and I ever will, and believe it or not, the represent the majority view among scholarship outside Evangelical circles. Evangelicals just don't have much interest in reading them because they cause theological problems if accepted. If you want more scholarly input, well... I have a ton of it for you.

=== They believed God had a body bigger than the Universe. That is substantially different from your idea of a bodily God. ANd imagine the size of those toenail clippings!!!

But you're dodging the most important fact that they believed God had a body! This resembles NOTHING of the orthodox Christian and orthodox Jewish understanding now. And this is only from later Midrashic sources too. God was in human form like us in the beginning, and then he became gigantic and then his body dissapeared altogether - in Jewish evolution.

== It shows how the Jewish mind could conceive of God being like them.

Howso? Xenophanes was a Greek philosopher, not Jewish. This doesn't make sense. These concepts you promote were unique to Xenophanes during his time. They were not borrowed from earlier Jews and no scholar will ever suggest such nonsense.

== I also looked up the hebrew elohim and found it associated with Ashtoreth as well, so could Elohim (H.F.) be female too?

Sure, Asherah the consort of Yahweh most certainly was.

== By that logic, God's finger is bigger than the universe. Sorry, it just doesn't add up. The ancient Jews may have thought of God as having a body, but He clearly does not, or He is too enormous to be seen in one glimpse. Darn those toenails!!

Your missing the fact that God's gigantic features only appear in Midrashic sources. It wasn't something that Moses understood, but was only a wway later Jews viewed him.

== So you think Montanus was right? How about the Gnostics of Irenaes? It tackled problems like these listed.

In some instances I'm sure they were. You seem to miss the fact that these "heretics" claimed to believe things according to scripture too. The Valentinian heretics claimed Paul was their leader and that their secret teachings were from him. It is silly to think that EVERYTHING they believed had no place in truth, just because teh later orthodoxy deemed them "heretics."

== So Gnosticism came from scripture?

See above.

== Good, cause I tend to get busy here at work and I also have the weekend coming up where I need to be with my kids.

Yeah sorry I have taken awhile, but unfortunately I might be another week before posting again. I have a full plate right now with school.

== Are you a Utah Mormon or a Strangite? Need to know where you're coming from

Neither, I'm a Florida Mormon. We're a rare breed.
:smile:

phantaz sunlyk

April 9th 2003, 12:46 AM

**7** say hey Kevin, may the peace of Christ be with you--

But it proves that Athanasius won by the hair of his chinny chin chin.

**8** Athanasius won for two reasons: because he was right, and because Christ promised that the gates of death wouldn't prevail against his Church.

Why was Arius winning so strongly if the overall Church thought he was a heretic?

**7** Arius won nothing; three bishops at Nicea (out of over 300) didn't sign the Creed. in the following years, when the issue really came to a head, nobody relied on Arius. the basic idea that "Jesus isn't God" did then what it does today--breaks up into several different theological affirmations (Arius: "The Son cannot know the Father!", his closest heir 50 years later: "Anyone can know the Father!") that died.

This is my point. The Church as a whole leaned against the Nicean philosophy as proposed by Athanasius.

**7** yet this statement needs to be modified. what people were against was the homoousia phrase. why? because it could then have meant that the Father and Son were the same person. the council itself used hypostasis and ousia as synonyms.
the prevailing theology between Nicea and Constantinople was quite close to Origen. the Son is eternal and intrinsic to the Father, yet he definitely is not the Father, and also, the Father is greater than he.

Those bishops who disagreed with the outcome were exiled.

**8** for a while. Athanasius himself was exiled a half dozen times--who got exiled had more to do with whether or not the emperor liked your theology than anything else, and more often than not, it was the Nicenes who were in this sense the underdog.

He obviously includes himself in the "we" so I believe this implies it was not a concept alien to Christian thought (Iraneus was a Christian).

**7** as mentioned above, that citation of Iren was taken out of its (theological) context. for Irenaeus God the Father was the metaphysical stopping point for all explanation.

A strictly literal interpretation of this demands that Christ created his own Father too. Saying it excludes thsi because God is uncreated begs the question.

**8** but if we read it in its historical-theological context, Christ is understood within the Wisdom paradigm, hence that issue doesn't even come up.

The text also says all things are reconciled by Him. Are they?

**7** in a sense this must be true. Origen and Gregory Nyssa believed in the universal apocastasis. while the hard sense can't be affirmed, i think we can hope for as much.

But you're dodging the most important fact that they believed God had a body!

**8** how else would you speak of a transcendent being? if i say that i feel "down in the dumps", does that mean that i believe my soul is either spatial or corporeal?
and who goes without such metaphors in their speech? it proves nothing. first you would need to prove that they were to a theological point such that the distinction between corporeality and icorporeality was even recognized (if it wasn't, then nothing follows for your case, i think), and next, that when it was recognized, your view was taken over against incorporeality. such talk, however, moves us out of everyday speech ("i feel blue today, my soul drags on the floor") and into philosophy. the OT wasn't written by philosophers. most Jews and Christians who did analyze the nature of God in light of philosophy sided against you.

God was in human form like us in the beginning,

**7** and a bird with feathers in the Psalms?
and if God essentially has a body, what is the cause of it? does God exist eternally, with matter existing beside him, whether he likes it or not?
peace.

Kevin W. Graham

April 9th 2003, 03:11 AM

**8** Athanasius won for two reasons: because he was right, and because Christ promised that the gates of death wouldn't prevail against his Church.

Question begging on both counts. You assume the Church in question was the same Church spoken of by Christ. It was far from it. Constantine was a ruthless, evil man. The bishops described him as an angel and he even tried to replace Christ with himself. So I have problems believing this was the same Church Christ had in mind. Furthermore the debate at Nicea was more like a night of WWF. When Eusebius of Nicodemia stated that Christ was created, the formal debate was now a shouting match: "You lie! Blasphemy! Heresy!" No argument from revelation was offered.

**7** Arius won nothing; three bishops at Nicea (out of over 300) didn't sign the Creed.

Yeah, but only 1/6 of the entire Church was represented, and primarily the Greek speaking East. And threat of exile is a good reason to go along with what was laid down by Constantine.

"Constantine, who treated religious questions solely from a political point of view assured unanimity by banishing all the bishops who would not sign the new profession of faith. In this way, unanimity was achieved. It was altogether unheard of that a universal creed should be instituted solely on the authority of the emperor, who as a catechumen was not even admitted to the mystery of the Eucharist and was totally unempowered to rule on the highest mysteries of the faith. Not a single bishop said a single word against this monstrous thing." (The Heretics, Walter Nigg p.147 )

Ok, I'm going to throw a bunch of junk at ya to get your response. What follows is an article/paper I started writing about 4 years ago when this subject piqued my curiosity. Unfortunately my curiosity died half-way through completion, so all that remains is a really rough draft of gathered research. Feel free to correct whatever is wrong...

Eusebius said that the motivation for compromise was fear as evidenced by the confession of several delegates who later regretted their signing of the ruling, and after summoning their courage, wrote to the Emperor: "We committed an impious act, O Prince, by subscribing to a blasphemy from fear of you". (Wilson in 'Jesus :The Evidence' p. 168. also In Search of the Loving God by Mark Mason chp VII )

After the Council dismissed, everyone returned to their country and interpreted the Nicene Creed their own way. The immediate result of the Nicene Creed, according to Larson, was far from pretty:

"...[the Creed] let loose a fury among mankind that has rarely been paralleled. Millions suffered violence or death in the pursuant wars and persecutions. Hundreds of bishops were exiled or murdered at the command of other bishops who when the tide turned, visited the same treatment upon their rivals. The great Athanasius was driven from his seen five times, and on, at least, two occasions barely escaped with his life. His Arian enemies, seated in his place of power, were not so fortunate: two of them were lynched, and the other was barely saved from the bloodthirsty mobs by the police. Arians and Athanasians alike sought to use the secular arm to terrify and assassinate their opponents, and to seize their congregations, churches, and revenues by force"(Larson, Religion of the Occident, p. 572 )

According to Larsen Arianism did not go away so easily. In fact, it had spread with acceptance more rapidly after the council than it ever did before. Within three short years, Eusebius of Nicodemia gained a hearing to present his views before Constantine once again. This was done because Arius found a way to interpret homoousia to fit his belief structure. As a result, Constantine had pardoned all of the previously banished bishops in 328 AD -- ergo, this was the year in which Alexander had suffered death by natural causes. Alexander's death would not be a victory for Arianism however, since he was immediately succeeded by Athanasius who would become known as the champion of Trinitarian orthodoxy.

Despite his recall from banishment, according to Newman, the Church did not allow Arius to come back into the fold so easily. Arius then appealed to the Emperor. Constantine's favorite sister Constantia --ironically an Arian herself-- on her deathbed, implored Constantine to support Arius and he did so. A date was set for the forcing of the Church to readmit Arius, along with his belief system, but while he was waiting for Constantine to arrive Arius stopped to relive himself and his bowels burst and he died in 336 AD. It has been speculated that Arius was murdered (poisoned) by assassins hired by Trinitarian proponents, possibly Athanasius himself. (Arians of the 4th Century, Chapter III, Section II by John Henry Newman )

It is indeed mind-boggling to think that Constantine would have been so willing to give up the doctrine that he had previously fought for. Either his sister's opinion was of more value or more convincing than anyone had imagined, or else the Christian theology was really that insignificant for him. Maybe all he cared about was silence and peace, no matter what the Church chose to believe. Or perhaps Eusebius of Nicodemia was the world's most underrated negotiator. We know that the relationship between Eusebius and Constantine had become more intimate, because it is claimed by some that on his death-bed, the Emperor was finally baptized into the religion he had created, by none other than Eusebius of Nicodemia -- who ironically opposed it. Despite the speculated death-bed repentance/baptism, most scholars maintain that Constantine was an avid sun-worshipper, even till his death. One thing we do know however, is that Constantine was not the last emperor to support Arianism.

After the Emperor's death, his son Constantius II, who ruled in the East while Constans and Constantine II (Photo above) ruled all of the West, continued on with his support of Arianism. He became very pro-active for Arianism and against the Nicenes in AD 353, just three years after becoming sole emperor of the empire. Constantius II continued as emperor until his death in AD 361. Arianism enjoyed a time of flourishing from AD 328-379. Many bishops signed Arian Creeds of confession, including Hosius of Cordova.

Athanasius was banned no less than five times, but this did not stop him from fighting for the doctrine that was created at Nicea--even in exile he was a staunch proponent. Because the homousia term leaned towards modalism, Athanasius had a hard time trying to sell the original Nicene Creed again. Especially since most of the bishops felt as though it was initially a doctrine that won by coercion. So what he had to do was compromise with a new term "homoiousios," meaning "of similar substance," to speak of the relationship of the Son to the Father. In AD 362, this compromise shows us just how desperate Athanasius really was given the fact that he had previous rejected this same term because he said it was just as heretical as Arianism. Athanasius declared that it was acceptable to refer to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as "one substance" as long as this was not understood to mean an obliteration of distinction between the three persons, and it was acceptable to speak of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as "three substances" as long as this was not understood to separate the three as three individual gods.(Justo Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity. Volume 1: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1984), 179 )

Athanasius died in AD 373, just eight years before his basic views would be adopted as orthodoxy at Constantinople. He did not live to see his victory, but his work was carried on by the Great Cappadocians: Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus. They refined some of the terminology of the Nicene Creed, and that of Athanasius, to make it more acceptable. It is their work that is reflected in the synthesis of the modern Trinitarian doctrine.
Their main contribution was in their use of ousia and hupostasis. At Nicea, these terms were used synonymously, but the Cappadocians distinguished between them as Tertullian had over 150 years before. They said that the Godhead existed as one ousia, but in three individual hupostasis. In Latin it was termed one subsantia and three personae. They did allow the Greek word prosopon to be used in place of hupostasis, but did not prefer it because "it originally meant face, countenance, or mask, and Sabellius had used it to mean manifestation or role." (Bernard, The Trinitarian Controversy in the Fourth Century, 40 ) Before Athanasius died, he encouraged his followers to not make any distinguishments between ousia and hupostasis, because Nicea did not distinguish them. He did not like to say "three hupostasis because it made too great of a distinction between the persons. He did not like the term prosopon because it made too little of a distinction." At the AD 362 synod, however, he did accept "three hupostasis" as orthodox language, although he still advocated for the older Nicene language.

Although "three hupostasis" was acceptable to many, many others viewed this as tritheism. Hebrews 1:3 was cited which taught that Jesus was the express image of God’s hupostasis, and not of a second hupostasis. Athanasius contributed to this misunderstanding by saying that all men have the same substance, just as the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost have the same substance. The Cappadocians elaborated upon this by comparing the trinity to three men. Just as Peter, James, and John were homoousios with one another, yet three persons, so the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were homoousios with one another, yet three Persons Who had the same divine nature (Basil, Letters, 38; 8:137)

To deal with this misunderstanding, Gregory of Nyssa admitted that the language employed was a customary abuse of language. He said that unlike three men, each member of the trinity participates in the other’s work: "Every operation which extends from God to the Creation … has its origin from the Father, and proceeds through the Son, and is perfected in the Holy Ghost." (Gregory of Nyssa, On "Not Three Gods," 4:84 )
In summary, the Three Cappadocians taught that

"The one God-head subsists in three coequal, coeternal, coessential persons, and this truth is an incomprehensible mystery. There is communion of substance but distinction of personhood. This trinity is a perfect, inseparable, indivisible union, and the persons work together in all things. The unique distinguishing characteristics of the persons are as follows: the Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten (generated), and the Holy Spirit is proceeding (spirated). The generation of the Son and the procession of the Holy Spirit are mysteries, however. While the persons are coequal and coeternal, the Father is in some sense the head and the origin"(Bernard, 45)

There is more of course, but I don't want to bog you down. I'm starting to get interested in this topic again and you seem to know your stuff from a Catholic perspective anyway.

Thanks

Bill the Cat

April 9th 2003, 05:06 AM

Well, I completed this reply once, but I'll have to do it again :argh:

Yesterday @ 01:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=59261#post59261)
Kevin W. Graham:

== And once again, either we import a meaning for olam to just mean a long time, or it has a dual meaning. The mountains and the priesthood had a definite beginning and will have a definite end. God has neither.

Again you assume two things here: 1) olam has dual meaning and 2) God has neither. We can agree to disagree, but what is certain is this: the LDS view cannot be criticized when its view is also supported. It doesn't rely on a strictly LDS source that decided to "update" the meaning. The same cannot be said for the orthodox Christian viewpoint.

To deny the dual meaning of olam is to say that God will have an end as the mountains will. Are you willing to go that far in your strict definition?

=== Well, I disagree with several assumptions Kevin made and I think he stretched some sources too. But I'll let JP handle that article. Does he know it's there? I'd love to see his response.

I doubt JP disagrees with it as much as you do. He knows its there, and if memory serves well, he said it was "perfect." Barney knows his stuff.

Actually, I emailed him and his reply was that this was a rough draft as far as he knew so he'd wait to critique it when it was finalized. HE also said you guys are out of your league. Not my words, mind you

== Well, you quoted Bickmore. I have quoted John Gill, Adam Clark, Albert Barnes, John Wesley, Irenaes, and a host of others that have no affiliation with Zondervan or Bethany House. I also am fond of dictionary.com

I quoted Bickmore who quoted Iraneus. I'm not relying on LDS scholarship to prove an LDS view since it is not the LDS view that Iraneus believed God could have a Father. We'll have to agree to disagree on the Iraneus quote. He obviously includes himself in the "we" so I believe this implies it was not a concept alien to Christian thought (Iraneus was a Christian). Regardless of the audience, he included himself. You haven't explained how my analogy makes sense if the audience somehow changes the logical implication.

Thanks to Phantaz for the look up here:

Book II Chapter I.-There is But One God: the Impossibility of Its Being Otherwise.
1. IT is proper, then, that I should begin with the first and most important head, that is, God the Creator, who made the heaven and the earth, and all things that are therein (whom these men blasphemously style the fruit of a defect), and to demonstrate that there is nothing either above Him or after Him; nor that, influenced by any one, but of His own free will, He created all things, since He is the only God, the only Lord, the only Creator, the only Father, alone containing all things, and Himself commanding all things into existence.
2. For how can there be any other Fulness, or Principle, or Power, or God, above Him, since it is matter of necessity that God, the Pleroma (Fulness) of all these, should contain all things in His immensity, and should be contained by no one? But if there is anything beyond Him, He is not then the Pleroma of all, nor does He contain all. For that which they declare to be beyond Him will be wanting to the Pleroma, or, to that God who is above all things. But that which is wanting, and falls in any way short, is not the Pleroma of all things. In such a case, He would have both beginning, middle, and end, with respect to those who are beyond Him. And if He has an end in regard to those things which are below, He has also a beginning with respect to those things which are above. In like manner, there is an absolute necessity that He should experience the very same thing at all other points, and should be held in, bounded, and enclosed by those existences that are outside of Him. For that being who is the end downwards, necessarily circumscribes and surrounds him who finds his end in it. And thus, according to them, the Father of all (that is, He whom they call Proön and Proarche), with their Pleroma, and the good God of Marcion, is established and enclosed in some other, and is surrounded from without by another mighty Being, who must of necessity be greater, inasmuch as that which contains is greater than that which is contained. But then that which is greater is also stronger, and in a greater degree Lord; and that which is greater, and stronger, and in a greater degree Lord-must be God.

Well, the bolded parts seem to show quite convincingly that Irenaeus did in fact believe there was nothing above or beyond God. No Heavenly Grandpa

== Still doesn't mean Arius was right.

True. But it proves that Athanasius won by the hair of his chinny chin chin. Why was Arius winning so strongly if the overall Church thought he was a heretic? This is my point. The Church as a whole leaned against the Nicean philosophy as proposed by Athanasius. Those bishops who disagreed with the outcome were exiled.

If he won by 1 vote or lost and then killed the winners, it makes no difference. Truth can not be swayed by committee. Arius was wrong.

== Well, I disagree because the phrase used is similar to others used.

Exactly, and each phrase refers to God's mode of action. In this case it is communication. God is not ONLY spirit anymore than he is ONLY light or ONLY love. In my review I cite several scholarly sources that refute the common orthodox interpretation of this verse.

But God is not the opposite of these attributes. He is not darkness (opposite of light) hate (opposite of love) nor flesh (opposite of Spirit). Also, I can cite several scholarly sources from the Jesus Seminar, but JP would thoroughly thump me. :bonk:

== Once again, I put little faith in Origen because he couldn't decide which way he wanted to go in his theology.

Name one church father that didn't move back and forth on theological positions.

Point taken, but we still read their works to get an idea of the theological landscape of their era.

== But they were not gods. How is it my interpretation? The text speaks clearly. The Geneva Bible Commentary says :

It appears to simply cite the verse and understand it aside from its context.

The Geneva Translation Commentary is actually a collection of margin notes by the translators. It is quite in context as I showed from Barnes

== And in context the chapter discusses, as Albert Barnes says:

I don't disagree with this actually. Being the One True God doesn't mean only God in existence.

Actually yes it does.

It is simply another way of saying the Most High God, or else Christ would be excluded. John 17:3 "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. "

Christ would not be excluded if you understood the Trinity.

Your understanding the verse to speak of the nonexistence of deities altogether which is completely alien from both the context of Isaiah and the context of the entire OT. The issue here was Yahweh's superiorority over those false gods that were worshipped via idols. 1 Thess 1:9 seems to refer to this distinction as well. The "true God" is always compared to the non-existent idols gods, not those gods who exist in the divine council.

The false gods were the likes of Ashtoreth, Chemosh, Molech, Ba'al, and the like. They did not really exist but were man made idols.

Too much theology is being read into Isaiah I believe, and this cannot be done without bypassing the overall context.

It is quite in keeping with the context. The Jews in exile were turning to the Babylonian gods. Isaiah was "subtly" reminding them that these so called gods of the Babylonians were bologna and there was only one real God.

== I didn't say it conflicts with orthodoxy, you merely asserted I did. God of Gods from Deut 10:17 means: Moses describes Jehovah the God of Israel as the “God of gods,” i.e., the supreme God, the essence of all that is divine, of all divine power and might (cf. Psa_136:2), - and as the “Lord of lords,” i.e., the supreme, unrestricted Ruler (“the only Potentate,” 1Ti_6:15), above all powers in heaven and on earth, “a great King above all gods” (Psa_95:3). Compare Rev_17:14 and Rev_19:16, where these predicates are transferred to the exalted Son of God, as the Judge and Conqueror of all dominions and powers that are hostile to God. Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

None of this logically follows unless other gods exist. The above commentary is just spin, in an attempt to downplay the obvious meaning. Hence, it conflicts with orthodoxy. You're relying solely upon the texts of Isaiah to prove the earliest concept of Judaism.

Not true. It follows perfectly in the idolatry mode that the Jews were imfamous for falling into. The commentary and Moses were showing that God is above all things. The Jews were running after false idols and Moses was showing that God is the only God there is and that no other thing in heaven or earth should be worshipped as a god.

== No, Angels were never called Yahweh.

I never said they were

ummm. yes you did.
[I]God does represent authority, and as I explained, angels who came in God's stead were called gods or even Yahweh for that reason.
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=52787#post52787

but we believe Yahweh and Elohim are distinct from one another and that through time the two became emerged as one. Recent textual evidence supports this actually, as non-LDS scholars argue that the Father God of ancient Israel was El Elyon and Yahweh was one of his children.

And there are other scholars who say that el'elyon, el'shaddai, and el'beth'el, were all different gods that eventually merged to form Jehovah. Big deal.

== And I got this description of the term "God" being a job title from a bishop who is my mormon friend's father in law. But what I'm saying is that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young called H.F Elohim and said that elohim was his name. Talmage in Jesus the Christ reiterates it on p. 38

I suppose it does include a fucntion, but it certainly isn't the only meaning behind God.

Hey, don't shoot the messenger, the Bishop told me to do it.

== Well, I must go LDS on this one. LORD is Jehovah (Jesus) not Elohim. The passage from Numbers says Elohim is not a man.

You're joking right?

Sorry. JP told me to rib you every now and then.

== Still doesn't handle how LDS authorities have said that elohim was H.F.'s name like Jehovah was Jesus'

This is a red herring that doesn't deal with the passage. The concept of Jehovah being Yahweh and the Father Elohim is vaguely supported in the text,

Well I think the text speaks loud and clear that Jehovah is Yahweh... lol... but to say that Jehovah is Jesus and Elohim is H.F. is nowhere supported and is in fact rebuffed by the several times that God is called Jehovah Elohim or Jehovah your Elohim.

but this doesn't sole your problem in the slightest: God is still called a man! And you're not going to get far with STRONGS on this one either. STRONGS also says elohim means ruler or judges. Which is false.

No, it says God is not a man.

Num 23:19 "God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?

1Sa 15:29 "Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind."

Job 9:32 "For He is not a man as I am that I may answer Him, That we may go to court together.

== Right you are.

Right. So if he doesn't have a beginning then how can he be the beginning of anything?

Huh? He's the beginning and the end at the same time. He's the perfect infinity symbol. Following your logic here, how can he be the end of anything without having an end? Oh yeah I forgot. He's olam, and has a definite end, like those pesky mountains.

== Nope. Everything that was created, EVERYTHING, was created by Jesus Christ. So Jesus was not created, or this statement is false.

That is not how teh text was meant to be understood. A strictly literal interpretation of this demands that Christ created his own Father too. Saying it excludes thsi because God is uncreated begs the question.

Nope, because God was not created. Jesus is God's creative power (the spoken word) Jesus is uncreated, just as the Father is uncreated. Do you really understand the Trinity that badly?

== How is it non biblical to say He was never created? The Bible says that all things that were created were created by Him.

The text also says all things are reconciled by Him. Are they?

Reference please. I can't find the verse you're discussing to even poke a gander about it.

== I think LDS have to go to non biblical jargon to talk about "spirit babies"

Actually, I've made no mention of spirit babies. And I only hear this phrase from LDS critics.

Sorry, Spirit Children. Sorry for bringing it up. :whip:

== I am not suggesting that anyone be worshipped. It is a consequence of being God.

Says who?

Dictionary.com (told you I liked them!!)

God
1)
a)A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b)The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2) A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality

== God is worshipped and when you become a god, you will be worshipped, but your wife will not. That's all i am getting at.

And you're basing this theory on what exactly?

Dictionary.com's definition and your comments about H.M.

== The overall point I was making is that if H.M. is a goddess, why is she not listed in the first article of faith?

Because we don't worship her. This isn't to say she is unworthy of worship, or that she doesn't receive worship in heaven. It is only to say that her existence has been suppressed to a great extent in the OT and only to a mild extent in the LDS faith. We acknowledge her exietence, but we acknowledge that she has no role in ruling the earth. What her role is exactly is a mystery to us. Her extistence being suppressed has nothing to do with her inferiority to the others, but everything to do with her uniqueness among them.

I'll let this post stand on it's own theological legs

== No, it comes from reconciling all of the texts. The article linked below by you seems to indicate these three men believe that jewish religion was a developed social concept, and not a divine revealed institution.

Ah, so you admit bias? Good for you. But you beg the question.

We all are biased to some degree.

But I see no admission in these men at all. It is possible toa ccept the Bibel as revealed and inspired without denying the redcation processes that have been thoroughly proven through manuscript and literary evidences.

== They compare the development of monotheism to the development of the worship of Ashtoreth and Chemosh and other national deities. I really don't see how this article bears any relevance on the Biblical understanding of the Hebrew religion.

These men are top-notch scholars who know the Bible and its history better than you and I ever will, and believe it or not, the represent the majority view among scholarship outside Evangelical circles. Evangelicals just don't have much interest in reading them because they cause theological problems if accepted. If you want more scholarly input, well... I have a ton of it for you.

You make it sound like Evangelical scholars are irresponsible or dishonest. I could not disagree more!! I know a few personally. My best bud's dad is one of them. He is very well versed in non-evangelical research.

=== They believed God had a body bigger than the Universe. That is substantially different from your idea of a bodily God. ANd imagine the size of those toenail clippings!!!

But you're dodging the most important fact that they believed God had a body! This resembles NOTHING of the orthodox Christian and orthodox Jewish understanding now. And this is only from later Midrashic sources too. God was in human form like us in the beginning, and then he became gigantic and then his body dissapeared altogether - in Jewish evolution.

So what? The reason the midrashes were done that way was to reconcile an idea with "problem" verses. The concept of God being our "size" didn't wash with certain passages, so the Hebrews had to adjust their mode of thinking. And to say that the ancients understood it is to fall back on a people who prayed to poles and golden oxen. Teh Scriptures are what we rely on and there are some trouble passages to deal with if God has a body that is our size.

== It shows how the Jewish mind could conceive of God being like them.

Howso? Xenophanes was a Greek philosopher, not Jewish. This doesn't make sense. These concepts you promote were unique to Xenophanes during his time. They were not borrowed from earlier Jews and no scholar will ever suggest such nonsense.

Oh sorry. Xeno was showing how the "human" mind conceives of a deity being similar to them. And if I'm not mistaken, Xeno was an atheist. I told you the only reason I used it was that I liked his name. :thumb:

== I also looked up the hebrew elohim and found it associated with Ashtoreth as well, so could Elohim (H.F.) be female too?

Sure, Asherah the consort of Yahweh most certainly was.

Ashtoreth was not the consort of Yahweh except in some twisted version of Hebrew belief.
Easton's Bible dictionary holds no help for you either:
Ashtoreth - the moon goddess of the Phoenicians, representing the passive principle in nature, their principal female deity; frequently associated with the name of Baal, the sun-god, their chief male deity (Judg. 10:6; 1 Sam. 7:4; 12:10). These names often occur in the plural (Ashtaroth, Baalim), probably as indicating either different statues or different modifications of the deities. This deity is spoken of as Ashtoreth of the Zidonians. She was the Ishtar of the Accadians and the Astarte of the Greeks (Jer. 44:17; 1 Kings 11:5, 33; 2 Kings 23:13). There was a temple of this goddess among the Philistines in the time of Saul (1 Sam. 31:10). Under the name of Ishtar, she was one of the great deities of the Assyrians. The Phoenicians called her Astarte. Solomon introduced the worship of this idol (1 Kings 11:33). Jezebel's 400 priests were probably employed in its service (1 Kings 18:19). It was called the "queen of heaven" (Jer. 44:25).

So she was never the consort of Yahweh except in some amalgam of Jewish and pagan religion.

== So you think Montanus was right? How about the Gnostics of Irenaes? It tackled problems like these listed.

In some instances I'm sure they were. You seem to miss the fact that these "heretics" claimed to believe things according to scripture too. The Valentinian heretics claimed Paul was their leader and that their secret teachings were from him. It is silly to think that EVERYTHING they believed had no place in truth, just because teh later orthodoxy deemed them "heretics."

Whether they had a few minor points right, they deviated from apostolic teaching. Back to Irenaeus:
In Against Heresies Irenaeus is primarily addressing gnostic teachings. While there were diversity of beliefs, in general gnostics held that they possessed secret or esoteric teachings or traditions passed down from the apostles themselves ("apostolic tradition") or received by a succession from the apostles. To counter this idea, among his arguments, Irenaeus appealed to the genuine apostolic tradition, that which was written down in the New Testament and publically taught by the apostles and personally entrusted by them to the Church (3.4.1). Irenaeus referred to the ostensible or public teachings of the apostles in the Bible that were orally reinforced by them when given to their students, such as Polycarp. Thus, tradition here means the correct teaching, the correct interpretation of Scripture or the teachings of Jesus that he gave to his apostles and they in turn faithfully transmitted to their students (i.e., genuine apostolic succession). It is the correct teaching. In essence Irenaeus is saying this is what Christ taught his disciples and they taught their students (e.g., Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Papias of Hierapolis, Polycarp of Smyrna), and they taught us. They told us this is what this passage means; this is how to interpret or understand this passage or teaching. Furthermore, it is the only teaching or meaning, or interpretation of what the apostles orally taught, or wrote in the New Testament. Therefore, there where no secret interpretations, meanings, or teachings that were only known by the "truly spiritual" or elite.

== So Gnosticism came from scripture?

See above.

You too!!:teeth:

== Are you a Utah Mormon or a Strangite? Need to know where you're coming from

Neither, I'm a Florida Mormon. We're a rare breed.
:smile:

That's rich!! Do you follow the prophetic succession of Brigham Young or James Strang?

Cheers, (I always wanted to type that)
Bill

kiwimac

April 9th 2003, 05:37 AM

There are other options you know Bill,

There are not just those who followed BY or James Strang, but others who followed JS III and still others again.

Knew a Georgian Elder once (US Georgia)! Haven't met any from Florida.

Kiwimac

Bill the Cat

April 9th 2003, 10:45 PM

Wow. Does each group consider the others apostate too? I know the Strangites consider the Utah Mormons apostates. And the Utah Mormons consider the RLDS apostates.

kiwimac

April 10th 2003, 01:42 AM

Nah,

The Community of Christ (RLDS) does not think the Utah mob are apostates, just strange! :rofl: :rofl:

Kiwimac

kiwimac

April 10th 2003, 01:43 AM

Kevin,

That hat is truly the most frightening thing I've seen in a very long while!

Kiwimac

Bill the Cat

April 10th 2003, 02:20 AM

So what flavor are you?

Kevin W. Graham

April 10th 2003, 04:15 AM

== To deny the dual meaning of olam is to say that God will have an end as the mountains will. Are you willing to go that far in your strict definition?

Ok I think I know what you're saying now. When you said dual meaning, I thought you were referring to the "limited"(as you called it) vs. "extended"(as I called it) meaning. But it appears as though you're referring to the meaning of having a certain permanent end. But if you recall, the definition on which I call upon says nothing of having an end. The Hebrew term olam simply means "the beginning or end of which is either uncertain or undefined." This goes for both past and future, and in this case it is neither certain or defined. Just because the mountains will have an end, doesn't mean this is what olam denotes. The end is uncertain, not necessarily non-existent. And it certainly doesn't follow that God's olam nature must be synonymous with the mountains. So I think I now get your point as to what you were saying, and I agree.

== Actually, I emailed him and his reply was that this was a rough draft as far as he knew so he'd wait to critique it when it was finalized. He also said you guys are out of your league. Not my words, mind you

If true, then this is dissapointing. I'm sure you're not doing him any favors by sharing these comments in public. He certainly hasn't shared these feelings with me, and I would suspect that he'd prefer to keep them private. I was thinking of pulling some of the guys over here, but not if this is the kinda stuff they're gonna read. I'm trying to give them the impression that JP can be scholarly when he wants too. Scholarly meaning the way you present your argument, not only the argument itself.

I wouldn't even know where to begin in response to this since I've tried to bend over backwards (in my LDS sphere) by trying to get JP the respect I think he deserves. Despite the fact that very little respect has been thrown our way since he decided to tackle Mormonism. I'm at a loss as to why we should feel out of our league by responding to criticisms. As far as I know, he is just another highly opinionated, blow hard apologist like myself. The main difference - besides the obvious- is that he does this stuff full time, whereas we do this whenever we get around to it. And only if we think it is worth the effort. So far the attitude towards JP in LDS apologetics has been more along the lines of McGregor, and nobody thought he was worth the effort but me and a couple others. I've been lobbying for a change in attitude towards him for about two years now, but I can't say I blame many of these guys. I mean, for example, JP's gripe about McGregor's review is that he doesn't deal with any major arguments, but the same thing can be said of JP's various reviews of LDS books (Hopkins, Peterson in particular). The more I read them the more I want to take the gloves off in my reviews of his chapters.

While I may very well be the weakest link on the team, I can assure you that some of these guys are no push overs. Roger Cook, who is the "intelligent Mormon" JP spoke of before, is BYU professor of Philosophy and is getting his doctorate in Patristics. He will be editing my review to make sure everything is accurate. Kevin Barney has a degree in Greek, and as an attorney, he knows how to argue. More importantly, he knows how to argue respectfully and logically. Likewise with former attorney Richard Hopkins. I just recently found out that Ted has a Masters in Religion from Univ. of Michigan, and is working on a doctorate I believe. Blake Ostler is a philosopher, who I believe pretty much man-handled JP's presentation on ex nihilo. Schindler speaks Greek and I think McGuire is getting his degree in Greek too. Schindler went to the horses mouth (Richard DeMaris) before posting his final review on Baptisms for the Dead. And I had to literally beg Barry Bickmore to respond to JP's Appendix since it was only a page and a half and it was an issue that they discussed in email. He really didn't want to get involved. I think he still doesn't think of JP as a respectful opponent although he has made some favorable comments about him in the past. And as far as I can tell, JP hasn't done anything to convince him otherwise.

Anyway, the outline will go as follows: http://www.anti-mormonism-revealed.com/mdflash.html

== Truth can not be swayed by committee.

I never suggested that it could. But obviously a committe was needed for orthodox truth.

== Arius was wrong.

Arius was wrong. But he almost won because the Church wasn't really that far off.

== But God is not the opposite of these attributes.

I'm not saying He is.

== He is not darkness (opposite of light) hate (opposite of love) nor flesh (opposite of Spirit).

Flesh is not opposite of spirit. If that were true, then we are all walking oxymorons. But you're missing the point. The issue is his mode of action, not metaphysical state of being.

== Also, I can cite several scholarly sources from the Jesus Seminar, but JP would thoroughly thump me.

I don't need to look into that dark corner of "scholarship" to support my point. Although I'm sure it would make your response a lot easier if I did.

Ever hear of this Evangelical guy named Carlton Winbery? I think you'd agree that he knows a thing or two about the Greek here. Well, I spoke with him about a month ago and he told me that the grammar does not require the theological understanding commonly offered by Evangelicals, and he further stated that he allows for the mystery of God to include a body. As to whether God is essentially spirit alone, he said on the B-Greek list that this matter is theological, and cannot be ascertained from the text alone.

Therefore, Jn 4:24 “is not an essential definition of God, but a description of God’s dealing with men.”(Raymond Brown, The Gospel According to John, I-XII, Anchor Books, Doubleday & Co., pg. 172) Evangelical scholar F.F. Bruce agrees that this phrase, “is more a question of describing sovereign freedom…than it is a definition of His nature.”(F.F. Bruce, The International Bible Commentary with The New International Version, general editor (revised edition): F.F. Bruce; Originally edited by Bruce; H.L. Ellison; G.C.D. Howley (Zondervan 1986; 1st 1979) 1241)

Christopher Stead said that when we speak of God as spiritual, “we do not mean that he has no body…but rather that he is the source of a mysterious life-giving power and energy that animates the human body, and himself possesses this energy in the fullest measure…In a Palestinian milieu it was still possible to picture the heavenly Father in human form and to see the contrast between heaven and earth as one of light and glory against relative darkness and indignity,”(Stead, Philosophy in Christian Antiquity, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994) 98, 188)

Wright believes that, “Nowhere in the Bible can there be said to be a ‘doctrine' of God's ‘spirituality’ unless one were to except John 4:24. The spirit of God is not to be identified with God himself,” since God, “is conceived in personal, even corporeal terms.”(G. Ernest Wright, Interpreter's Bible, 1:362) Terence E. Fretheim offers an interesting perspective that would also support the LDS understanding. He argues that for the early Christians, spirit was considered material, and therefore, “To speak of God as spirit does not necessarily entail formlessness...Israel did not conceive of God in terms of formlessness, but rather that the human form of the divine appearances constituted an enfleshment which bore essential continuities with the form which God was believed to have.”(Terence E. Fretheim, The Suffering of God , 102)

== Point taken, but we still read their works to get an idea of the theological landscape of their era.

But a realistic picture reveals something akin to the Rocky mountains. Not a smooth flow of agreement.

== Actually yes it does.

That is your interpretation. But by this assertion, Jesus is not God.

== Christ would not be excluded if you understood the Trinity.

Ahh, so one must first adopt the Trinity model to understand the scriptures.
Funny. I thought the scriptures came first and everything else had to abide by THAT standard, not vice versa.

== The false gods were the likes of Ashtoreth, Chemosh, Molech, Ba'al, and the like. They did not really exist but were man made idols.

Not according to the earliest Jews. I think your main problem is that you're reading commentaries that are extremely outdated. Geneva and John Gill for crying out loud? Might as well thrown in Matthew Henry. A lot has happened in the world of biblical scholarship since these guys lived. The DSS have been discovered. Texts at Ugarit shed a tremendous amount of light on intrpereting older texts that speak of these gods. Newer theories have been forwarded and older ones have been rejected. Some have been flatly disproven (like the elohim = rulers/judges, and the idea that ancient Israel was always monotheistic).

== Not true. It follows perfectly in the idolatry mode that the Jews were imfamous for falling into. The commentary and Moses were showing that God is above all things. The Jews were running after false idols and Moses was showing that God is the only God there is and that no other thing in heaven or earth should be worshipped as a god.

Again, scholarship disagrees. While I don't adopt the full fledged version of the DH, I don't discount all of its evidences that there was indeed a redaction process that was influenced heavily by the Josiah reform. Much of the older polytheistic allusions were cleaned up along with the anthropomorphisms. But you'll see much more of this in my review. I think I'm biting off more than I planned to chew right now here, and I don't want to give too much away just yet.

== ummm. yes you did. God does represent authority, and as I explained, angels who came in God's stead were called gods or even Yahweh for that reason.

You're right, I did. But I clearly overstated my case. The angel was called the "Angel of Yahweh." And his name was "in" him. That is what I meant to say. Fingers typing faster than my brain thinks sometimes.

== Hey, don't shoot the messenger, the Bishop told me to do it

Not shooting anyone. I'm not even certain I disagree with him since I don't know what he said exactly. God is a function in a very real sense, but I'm not sure if he was saying that was the extent of its meaning.

== Well I think the text speaks loud and clear that Jehovah is Yahweh... lol...

LOL... sorry, I have to laugh at my own mistakes now and then. Can't believe I said that. Of course Jehovah is Yahweh. I think you knew what I meant.

== but to say that Jehovah is Jesus and Elohim is H.F. is nowhere supported and is in fact rebuffed by the several times that God is called Jehovah Elohim or Jehovah your Elohim.

Not really. Again there has been much written on this subject over the past few decades that relies heavily on the DH and the Ugaritic texts, which Evangelical scholarship has pretty much blown off as unimportant. They don't want to hear it. This is because they have already determined their theological standpoint and have no need to hear theories or evidences which conflict with their already made up minds. You guys have been getting away with name calling ("They are liberals"), but you're not going to pin this on the nimrods at the Jesus Seminar.

== No, it says God is not a man.

No, these verses say He is not a Man like us , in that He would lie. If I tell my Uncle that I am not a man like him, because I don't commit adultery, does this mean I am not a man at all? You're not dealing with the verse which clearly says Yahweh is a man of War. Bringing up verses that create an apparent conflict won't reconcile the matter, especially from your point of view since you don't believe scripture can contradict itself.

== Huh? He's the beginning and the end at the same time. He's the perfect infinity symbol. Following your logic here, how can he be the end of anything without having an end?

Good point. But the "beginning" in the Bible is commonly recognized as a reference to the beginning of creation, by which Christ performed under the guidance of teh Father. This says nothing of his state of being prior to this event. Likwise the "end" must be understood in that context as well.

== Nope, because God was not created. Jesus is God's creative power (the spoken word) Jesus is uncreated, just as the Father is uncreated. Do you really understand the Trinity that badly?

Apparently, but I'm trying to learn. I don't agree with hardly any of it, but I at least want to understand it properly.

== Reference please. I can't find the verse you're discussing to even poke a gander about it.

"And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled" ( Col 1:20-21)

"For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life."(Rom 5:10)

Will all the demons, including Satan be reconciled to Christ? Remember now..."all things."

== Dictionary.com (told you I liked them!!)

Dictionary.com, unfortunately, doesn't offer definitions of terms as understood by ancient Greeks or the Hebrews. This was my point. But if we applied English definitions consistently then you'd have a serious problem: Christian: "Professing belief in Jesus as Christ." I guess Mormons are Christians after all.

Doooooh!

== You make it sound like Evangelical scholars are irresponsible or dishonest. I could not disagree more!! I know a few personally. My best bud's dad is one of them. He is very well versed in non-evangelical research.

But as an Evangelical, you're confined to those issues that pertain to Evangelicalsim. For example, the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls produced evidence of heavy redaction in the OT goes almost unnoticed in Evangelical shcolarship. Practically the only book that was left untouched was Isaiah. Jeremiah reveals an absence of about 900 words from the received text. Probably the most controversial issue revolves around Deut 32:8-9. So what do I find when I go to Evangelical websites liek Christainitytoday.com? I type in Dead Sea Scrolls and get faith promoting articles about how God's Word has been proven unchanged since the Book of Isaiah remains intact. Deut 32:8-9 isn't even mentioned. Same with DSS books written by Evangelical conservatives. This is just one example. So to say the least, if I wanted to get a balanced perspective as to what is going on in biblical scholarship today, the last place I'd look would be an Evangelical arena. These issues don't get acknowledged or addressed it seems, until they become such a thorn in their side that they have to eventually write up apologetic responses to them.

This is precisely why I run up against so many Evangelicals who have no clue as to what I'm talking about when I say stuff like the judges/rulers = elohim has been refuted for decades now. This is still a common Evangelical favorite, so there really isn't much on their side of the fence that they can use to find out much about it. For crying out loud you guys still think John gill carries a voice in scholarship today! Another example is the common rant about monotheism. You guys are so neck deep in the monotheism presuppostion that it would be devestating for Evangelical schoalrs to offer refutations to this common assumption, based on current scholarship. That is why there are very few Evangelicals standing up to it. Those that do are in danger of being labeled a "liberal."

== Ashtoreth was not the consort of Yahweh except in some twisted version of Hebrew belief.

Again, you're demonstrating my point. This is another subject that has attracted much attention since the discovery at Ugarit. More has been written on this subject the past 30 years than in all the years prior. Of course, Evangelicals want none of it so they are satisfied with the usual dismissal. Like the one you offered from Easton's. But this sort of dismissal doesn't wash.

== That's rich!! Do you follow the prophetic succession of Brigham Young or James Strang?

Jesus Christ actually.

Dooooh!

Come on, what do you think? The Strangites are numbered to around 10,000 I think. You think I'd be a part of that loony bin? I wrote something relevant to this issue a few months ago if you're interested: http://www.anti-mormonism-revealed.com/succession.htm

Kiwimac: "That hat is truly the most frightening thing I've seen in a very long while!"

Oh you're just jealous. :smile:

Bill the Cat

April 10th 2003, 06:20 AM

Well, I'll handle what I am qualified to handle now, the rest i had to call in the calvary (my best friend's pop), so it may be a few days. Sorry

Today @ 04:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=61451#post61451)
Kevin W. Graham:

== To deny the dual meaning of olam is to say that God will have an end as the mountains will. Are you willing to go that far in your strict definition?

Ok I think I know what you're saying now. When you said dual meaning, I thought you were referring to the "limited"(as you called it) vs. "extended"(as I called it) meaning. But it appears as though you're referring to the meaning of having a certain permanent end. But if you recall, the definition on which I call upon says nothing of having an end. The Hebrew term olam simply means "the beginning or end of which is either uncertain or undefined." This goes for both past and future, and in this case it is neither certain or defined. Just because the mountains will have an end, doesn't mean this is what olam denotes. The end is uncertain, not necessarily non-existent. And it certainly doesn't follow that God's olam nature must be synonymous with the mountains. So I think I now get your point as to what you were saying, and I agree.

Good. I was hoping I had explained it well enough for you to see where I was coming from

== Actually, I emailed him and his reply was that this was a rough draft as far as he knew so he'd wait to critique it when it was finalized. He also said you guys are out of your league. Not my words, mind you

If true, then this is dissapointing. I'm sure you're not doing him any favors by sharing these comments in public. He certainly hasn't shared these feelings with me, and I would suspect that he'd prefer to keep them private. I was thinking of pulling some of the guys over here, but not if this is the kinda stuff they're gonna read. I'm trying to give them the impression that JP can be scholarly when he wants too. Scholarly meaning the way you present your argument, not only the argument itself.

I wouldn't even know where to begin in response to this since I've tried to bend over backwards (in my LDS sphere) by trying to get JP the respect I think he deserves. Despite the fact that very little respect has been thrown our way since he decided to tackle Mormonism. I'm at a loss as to why we should feel out of our league by responding to criticisms. As far as I know, he is just another highly opinionated, blow hard apologist like myself. The main difference - besides the obvious- is that he does this stuff full time, whereas we do this whenever we get around to it. And only if we think it is worth the effort. So far the attitude towards JP in LDS apologetics has been more along the lines of McGregor, and nobody thought he was worth the effort but me and a couple others. I've been lobbying for a change in attitude towards him for about two years now, but I can't say I blame many of these guys. I mean, for example, JP's gripe about McGregor's review is that he doesn't deal with any major arguments, but the same thing can be said of JP's various reviews of LDS books (Hopkins, Peterson in particular). The more I read them the more I want to take the gloves off in my reviews of his chapters.

While I may very well be the weakest link on the team, I can assure you that some of these guys are no push overs. Roger Cook, who is the "intelligent Mormon" JP spoke of before, is BYU professor of Philosophy and is getting his doctorate in Patristics. He will be editing my review to make sure everything is accurate. Kevin Barney has a degree in Greek, and as an attorney, he knows how to argue. More importantly, he knows how to argue respectfully and logically. Likewise with former attorney Richard Hopkins. I just recently found out that Ted has a Masters in Religion from Univ. of Michigan, and is working on a doctorate I believe. Blake Ostler is a philosopher, who I believe pretty much man-handled JP's presentation on ex nihilo. Schindler speaks Greek and I think McGuire is getting his degree in Greek too. Schindler went to the horses mouth (Richard DeMaris) before posting his final review on Baptisms for the Dead. And I had to literally beg Barry Bickmore to respond to JP's Appendix since it was only a page and a half and it was an issue that they discussed in email. He really didn't want to get involved. I think he still doesn't think of JP as a respectful opponent although he has made some favorable comments about him in the past. And as far as I can tell, JP hasn't done anything to convince him otherwise.

I don't think JP would mind that i said what he said. As far as his comments, he is a bit brash and can be seen as not serious but he is still quite scholarly. I think that adds to his character. Any man who takes himself or his opponents too seriously needs an exlax.

== Truth can not be swayed by committee.

I never suggested that it could. But obviously a committe was needed for orthodox truth.

Referring to the Councils? No I think they were held to establish a united teaching and identify heresies (notice I didn't say heretics) that were seeping into apostolic teaching.

== Arius was wrong.

Arius was wrong. But he almost won because the Church wasn't really that far off.

But I'd prefer to believe that any creed that denied Christ's deity would have been eventually overturned once cooler heads prevailed.

== Also, I can cite several scholarly sources from the Jesus Seminar, but JP would thoroughly thump me.

I don't need to look into that dark corner of "scholarship" to support my point. Although I'm sure it would make your response a lot easier if I did.

I think you missed the satire. What I was saying is that some think that the JS guys were respected scholars.

Ever hear of this Evangelical guy named Carlton Winbery? I think you'd agree that he knows a thing or two about the Greek here. Well, I spoke with him about a month ago and he told me that the grammar does not require the theological understanding commonly offered by Evangelicals, and he further stated that he allows for the mystery of God to include a body. As to whether God is essentially spirit alone, he said on the B-Greek list that this matter is theological, and cannot be ascertained from the text alone.

Therefore, Jn 4:24 “is not an essential definition of God, but a description of God’s dealing with men.”(Raymond Brown, The Gospel According to John, I-XII, Anchor Books, Doubleday & Co., pg. 172) Evangelical scholar F.F. Bruce agrees that this phrase, “is more a question of describing sovereign freedom…than it is a definition of His nature.”(F.F. Bruce, The International Bible Commentary with The New International Version, general editor (revised edition): F.F. Bruce; Originally edited by Bruce; H.L. Ellison; G.C.D. Howley (Zondervan 1986; 1st 1979) 1241)

Christopher Stead said that when we speak of God as spiritual, “we do not mean that he has no body…but rather that he is the source of a mysterious life-giving power and energy that animates the human body, and himself possesses this energy in the fullest measure…In a Palestinian milieu it was still possible to picture the heavenly Father in human form and to see the contrast between heaven and earth as one of light and glory against relative darkness and indignity,”(Stead, Philosophy in Christian Antiquity, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994) 98, 188)

Wright believes that, “Nowhere in the Bible can there be said to be a ‘doctrine' of God's ‘spirituality’ unless one were to except John 4:24. The spirit of God is not to be identified with God himself,” since God, “is conceived in personal, even corporeal terms.”(G. Ernest Wright, Interpreter's Bible, 1:362) Terence E. Fretheim offers an interesting perspective that would also support the LDS understanding. He argues that for the early Christians, spirit was considered material, and therefore, “To speak of God as spirit does not necessarily entail formlessness...Israel did not conceive of God in terms of formlessness, but rather that the human form of the divine appearances constituted an enfleshment which bore essential continuities with the form which God was believed to have.”(Terence E. Fretheim, The Suffering of God , 102)

Calling the calvary. :thumb:

== Point taken, but we still read their works to get an idea of the theological landscape of their era.

But a realistic picture reveals something akin to the Rocky mountains. Not a smooth flow of agreement.

Hence I don't quote them much at all.

== Actually yes it does.

That is your interpretation. But by this assertion, Jesus is not God.

how so?

== Christ would not be excluded if you understood the Trinity.

Ahh, so one must first adopt the Trinity model to understand the scriptures.
Funny. I thought the scriptures came first and everything else had to abide by THAT standard, not vice versa.

No, first one must understand the Trinity to some degree. The scriptures do come first. Once again, it's the "trouble verses"
that are best explained by the trinity

== The false gods were the likes of Ashtoreth, Chemosh, Molech, Ba'al, and the like. They did not really exist but were man made idols.

Not according to the earliest Jews. I think your main problem is that you're reading commentaries that are extremely outdated. Geneva and John Gill for crying out loud? Might as well thrown in Matthew Henry. A lot has happened in the world of biblical scholarship since these guys lived. The DSS have been discovered. Texts at Ugarit shed a tremendous amount of light on intrpereting older texts that speak of these gods. Newer theories have been forwarded and older ones have been rejected. Some have been flatly disproven (like the elohim = rulers/judges, and the idea that ancient Israel was always monotheistic).

Calvary once again. Oh and BTW, I quoted Geneva to show that no evangelical bias was coming forth. That's all.

== ummm. yes you did. God does represent authority, and as I explained, angels who came in God's stead were called gods or even Yahweh for that reason.

You're right, I did. But I clearly overstated my case. The angel was called the "Angel of Yahweh." And his name was "in" him. That is what I meant to say. Fingers typing faster than my brain thinks sometimes.

Glad to help. :cool:

== Well I think the text speaks loud and clear that Jehovah is Yahweh... lol...

LOL... sorry, I have to laugh at my own mistakes now and then. Can't believe I said that. Of course Jehovah is Yahweh. I think you knew what I meant.

Yep I was just having a bit of fun.

== but to say that Jehovah is Jesus and Elohim is H.F. is nowhere supported and is in fact rebuffed by the several times that God is called Jehovah Elohim or Jehovah your Elohim.

Not really. Again there has been much written on this subject over the past few decades that relies heavily on the DH and the Ugaritic texts, which Evangelical scholarship has pretty much blown off as unimportant. They don't want to hear it. This is because they have already determined their theological standpoint and have no need to hear theories or evidences which conflict with their already made up minds. You guys have been getting away with name calling ("They are liberals"), but you're not going to pin this on the nimrods at the Jesus Seminar.

Calvary

== No, it says God is not a man.

No, these verses say He is not a Man like us , in that He would lie. If I tell my Uncle that I am not a man like him, because I don't commit adultery, does this mean I am not a man at all? You're not dealing with the verse which clearly says Yahweh is a man of War. Bringing up verses that create an apparent conflict won't reconcile the matter, especially from your point of view since you don't believe scripture can contradict itself.

With the exception of the Job passage, the others just say He is not a man, so He doesn't need to repent or change his mind. Different views again on our parts. You see it one way, I see it another.

== Huh? He's the beginning and the end at the same time. He's the perfect infinity symbol. Following your logic here, how can he be the end of anything without having an end?

Good point. But the "beginning" in the Bible is commonly recognized as a reference to the beginning of creation, by which Christ performed under the guidance of teh Father. This says nothing of his state of being prior to this event. Likwise the "end" must be understood in that context as well.

Which means what exactly? that the text says nothing after the end of creation as to what God will be doing? I've read Rev enough to know that's not the case.

== Nope, because God was not created. Jesus is God's creative power (the spoken word) Jesus is uncreated, just as the Father is uncreated. Do you really understand the Trinity that badly?

Apparently, but I'm trying to learn. I don't agree with hardly any of it, but I at least want to understand it properly.

Keep on reading the wisdom/logos ideas

== Reference please. I can't find the verse you're discussing to even poke a gander about it.

"And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled" ( Col 1:20-21)

"For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life."(Rom 5:10)

Will all the demons, including Satan be reconciled to Christ? Remember now..."all things."

No because they are unreconcilable. their fate was sealed the minute they followed Satan

== Dictionary.com (told you I liked them!!)

Dictionary.com, unfortunately, doesn't offer definitions of terms as understood by ancient Greeks or the Hebrews. This was my point. But if we applied English definitions consistently then you'd have a serious problem: Christian: "Professing belief in Jesus as Christ." I guess Mormons are Christians after all.

So gods are not worshipped? I will never say someone is not a Christian. That is foolishly elitist. I simply compare ideas to the Bible and make decisions on ideas, not people.

== You make it sound like Evangelical scholars are irresponsible or dishonest. I could not disagree more!! I know a few personally. My best bud's dad is one of them. He is very well versed in non-evangelical research.

But as an Evangelical, you're confined to those issues that pertain to Evangelicalsim. For example, the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls produced evidence of heavy redaction in the OT goes almost unnoticed in Evangelical shcolarship. Practically the only book that was left untouched was Isaiah. Jeremiah reveals an absence of about 900 words from the received text. Probably the most controversial issue revolves around Deut 32:8-9. So what do I find when I go to Evangelical websites liek Christainitytoday.com? I type in Dead Sea Scrolls and get faith promoting articles about how God's Word has been proven unchanged since the Book of Isaiah remains intact. Deut 32:8-9 isn't even mentioned. Same with DSS books written by Evangelical conservatives. This is just one example. So to say the least, if I wanted to get a balanced perspective as to what is going on in biblical scholarship today, the last place I'd look would be an Evangelical arena. These issues don't get acknowledged or addressed it seems, until they become such a thorn in their side that they have to eventually write up apologetic responses to them.

This is precisely why I run up against so many Evangelicals who have no clue as to what I'm talking about when I say stuff like the judges/rulers = elohim has been refuted for decades now. This is still a common Evangelical favorite, so there really isn't much on their side of the fence that they can use to find out much about it. For crying out loud you guys still think John gill carries a voice in scholarship today! Another example is the common rant about monotheism. You guys are so neck deep in the monotheism presuppostion that it would be devestating for Evangelical schoalrs to offer refutations to this common assumption, based on current scholarship. That is why there are very few Evangelicals standing up to it. Those that do are in danger of being labeled a "liberal."

== Ashtoreth was not the consort of Yahweh except in some twisted version of Hebrew belief.

Again, you're demonstrating my point. This is another subject that has attracted much attention since the discovery at Ugarit. More has been written on this subject the past 30 years than in all the years prior. Of course, Evangelicals want none of it so they are satisfied with the usual dismissal. Like the one you offered from Easton's. But this sort of dismissal doesn't wash.

We'll see.... Dr Mike to the rescue!!!

== That's rich!! Do you follow the prophetic succession of Brigham Young or James Strang?

Jesus Christ actually.

Dooooh!

Come on, what do you think? The Strangites are numbered to around 10,000 I think. You think I'd be a part of that loony bin? I wrote something relevant to this issue a few months ago if you're interested: http://www.anti-mormonism-revealed.com/succession.htm

You never know till you ask. I'll send you more on strangites later.
I'd like your take on the letter from Joseph Smith naming Strang the new president.

JesusFreakVOM

April 10th 2003, 10:22 AM

kevin, your religion is a mess, flee it while theres still time.

JesusFreakVOM

April 10th 2003, 03:06 PM

kevin, is your dog diggin for the truth? maybe u should join him.

Kevin W. Graham

April 10th 2003, 04:05 PM

== I don't think JP would mind that i said what he said.

I'm talking from experience here. In the past I have cited JP from emails and I usually get called to the carpet.

== As far as his comments, he is a bit brash and can be seen as not serious but he is still quite scholarly.

That to me is borderline oxymoron. I think he has tremendous potential to be scholarly, and the content of his arguments are as such. But presentation wise, it just ain't happening.

== I think that adds to his character.

Very much so. And there ain't nothing wrong with that, so long as we recognize it in that context. It is his character.

== Any man who takes himself or his opponents too seriously needs an exlax.

And any man who presumes his opponents are out of his league - by virtue of their disagreement with what he says - needs a taste of humble pie.

== Referring to the Councils? No I think they were held to establish a united teaching and identify heresies (notice I didn't say heretics) that were seeping into apostolic teaching.

That is a massive oversimplification that begs many questions. Can you at least admit that the Trinity today would be nonexistent without the creeds/councils?

== I think you missed the satire. What I was saying is that some think that the JS guys were respected scholars.

They are legends in their own minds, yes. But the scholars I cite are world class.

== Calling the calvary.

Great.

== how so?

If the one True God means only God in existence, then Jesus is not this God since he calls his Father the one True God. Therefore Jesus cannot be God since His Father is teh only God in existence. I know this conflicts with the Trinity but that IS the point. So which comes first, the scripture as it reads, or the 4th century concept of a Trinity which serves as its interpreter? My beef is that we are always told "sola scriptura", but that isn't really true. Put 50 guys in a room with a Bible and see how many come out with a Trinitarian understanding as defined by the Greek councils.

== No, first one must understand the Trinity to some degree. The scriptures do come first.

This isn't true, again. I don't see the Trinity at all in the scriptures. Most people don't who do not already come from that traditional background. Many Trinitarian scholars admit that the Bible doesn't explicitly teach it. It must be read into the Bible.

== Once again, it's the "trouble verses" that are best explained by the trinity

These explanations appear to be little more than excuses. If it conflicts, label it a "paradox" and consign it to the "mystery of God" bin which is essentially the usual take on the Trinity.

== Calvary once again. Oh and BTW, I quoted Geneva to show that no evangelical bias was coming forth. That's all.

The Geneva Bible translators of 1560 came from the same theology as do most Evangelicals.

== Which means what exactly? that the text says nothing after the end of creation as to what God will be doing?

No, since God is called an end, does this mean he has an end? Not at all. I'm saying that "beginning" in understood in context with the creation. It says nothing of God's activity prior to that event. Nor does it say anything about His mode of existence, or His existence at all.

== Keep on reading the wisdom/logos ideas

I've read them enough. I suggest you read Ben McGuire's review of chapter two when it is released.

== No because they are unreconcilable. their fate was sealed the minute they followed Satan

EXACTLY! So since you agree that all things, which are reconciled to Christ are do not include demons and Satan(Col 1:20-22), then why should they be included in the "all things" of Col 1:15-16? All things means all thinsg right? Or is it just when it conforms to a particular theological tenet?

== So gods are not worshipped?

Didn't say that either. To tell you the truth I don't know if gods in heaven are all worshipped or not. But I know it is biblical to assume that we will be worshipped.

Rev 3:9 "Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet , and to know that I have loved thee"

== I will never say someone is not a Christian. That is foolishly elitist. I simply compare ideas to the Bible and make decisions on ideas, not people.

Good for you. I'm pleased to hear this.

== You never know till you ask. I'll send you more on strangites later. I'd like your take on the letter from Joseph Smith naming Strang the new president.

The best thing about this letter is that it still exists, and has been deemed a forgery by experts. The Strang issue is really a non-issue.

jpholding

April 10th 2003, 07:52 PM

Dewd! :smile:

Very much so. And there ain't nothing wrong with that, so long as we recognize it in that context. It is his character.

You know I wouldn't be me if I didn't do some trash talk! :brow: Balance it out, though -- I also been complimenting several LDS now and then. Only one Skeptic so far has earned any praise from me at all, and you guys are way ahead of the game in my book (even if you are wrong, ha ha! :brow: )

And any man who presumes his opponents are out of his league - by virtue of their disagreement with what he says - needs a taste of humble pie.

Nah, nah, not because of disagreement but because you're going to have to match the brains of the outfit I use -- Witherington, Wright, the entire crowd. No offense, dewd, but come on -- it took me over two years to do my book! :help: Sure, you got a team, but I'll be a little hurt if you get done TOO quickly! Aside from Cook, have you got any "true" academics on the team?

Take five! :cool:

phantaz sunlyk

April 10th 2003, 10:27 PM

**7** say hey Kev, gotta be quick. i've been workin' hella-long hours and have a lotta thang-thangs on my schedule.

Question begging on both counts. You assume the Church in question was the same Church spoken of by Christ. It was far from it.

**8** lay out the criteria of identity through history for the Church, and then we can talk about how begged my assertion was.
you side with neither the Nicenes nor the Arians (nor the neo-Arians such as Eunomius). very well--atleast we have a historical record of various bodies giving witness to various beliefs. where were the Mormons? if the Church had indeed gone apostate way back in the day, then where was the Mormon counterpart to Athanasius (or Arius) who stood up and forwarded a counter argument?

Constantine was a ruthless, evil man. The bishops described him as an angel and he even tried to replace Christ with himself. So I have problems believing this was the same Church Christ had in mind. Furthermore the debate at Nicea was more like a night of WWF. When Eusebius of Nicodemia stated that Christ was created, the formal debate was now a shouting match: "You lie! Blasphemy! Heresy!" No argument from revelation was offered.

**8** etc., etc. first of all, your portrait of Constantine is top heavy. second, we don't have the minutes of the Council anyway, so i'm wondering how you could be so certain that it was on par with the WWF? third, that Eusebius of Nicodemia was openly and vigorously reputiated in no way implies that theological rigor was lacking in any of the parties involved, quite the contrary.

Yeah, but only 1/6 of the entire Church was represented, and primarily the Greek speaking East.

**7** Rome had two reps present, hence the West cannot be claimed to have lacked a voice. that only 1/6 was present--i'm not certain what this is supposed to prove, unless it is assumed outright that the Church at that time was a group of people with wildly varying theologies, which is very much question begging.

And threat of exile is a good reason to go along with what was laid down by Constantine.

**8** which assumes outright that the bishops present were definitely straw-men with no spine. people were exiled all over the place between Nicea and Constantinople ...

was not even admitted to the mystery of the Eucharist and was totally unempowered to rule on the highest mysteries of the faith. Not a single bishop said a single word against this monstrous thing." (The Heretics, Walter Nigg p.147 )

**7** Constantine organized the assembly and by and large stood back and let the bishops hammer out the issue. there is no evidence that he intervened in the formulation of the Creed (his rec of "homoousios" came most likely from Hosius of Cordova, and at any rate, it may have been present in Christian thought from the time of Origen--the concept itself was present from the time of the apostles and Christ).

Ok, I'm going to throw a bunch of junk at ya to get your response. What follows is an article/paper I started writing about 4 years ago when this subject piqued my curiosity.

**7** okay, here are the things that immediately jumped out at me. first, i wonder whether or not your approach is correct? by that i mean that the info regarding the reed-like emperors seems to me superfluous. if the activity of the emperor's during that time period proves anything, it is this--that no emperor had the ability to succesfully impose his theology on the Church. this also is the conclusion of RPC Hanson, who has written the most thorough account of the Nicene era to date.
in place of this, i think you should ask yourself questions such as, "so what, essentially, were the Nicenes fighting for? and what were the Arians fighting for? what is the definite line that separates them?", and so on. in my article on this at Tekton, i concluded that the Nicens had two basic points that they stood for--that the Son is NOT a contingent creation created ex-Nihilo (i.e., he belongs essentially to the Father), and second, that he is of the same nature as the Father. in my reading since then, the evidence i've seen only strengthens my belief that this indeed is the basic line of demarcation.
next, i think you should investigate the semantic issues (hypostasis, prosopon, ousia, substantia, subsistentia, etc.). the reason i say this is because you seem to think it highly relevant that Athanasius, towards the end of his career, "softened" on the synonymity of ousia and hypostasis. i don't see this as being at all relevant. the only thing it proves is that the words used to articulate the doctrine needed to be thought through more carefully. if anything, it might be used as an argument against the notion that parties such as the Athanasians, the Marcellians, and the followers of Basil of Ancyra disagreed not over the substance of the doctrine, but over semantic issues that had not yet been clarified.
if J.P. Holding speaks of the Son as "eternally created", and i (as i have done elsewhere, vigorously) state that it is plainly false to teach that "the Son is created", does it follow that we disagree in substance? not at all, for he is using the word "created" within its older ANE-pre Nicene context, and i use it in the post-Nicene context. we agree in substance, yet unless the nuances of our phraseology is investigated, it would appear as though J.P. Holding and Phantaz Sunlyk "disagree over a vital issue pertaining to Trinitarian dogma"--the exact opposite of the truth.
finally--and this is sorta beside the point--i think you should take a good look at the writings of the Nicenes and see 1)in what sense did they think the Father and Son to "be one", and 2)in what way did they understand the Son to be related to the Father.
i am not aware of a single source that has yet made sustained issue of the fact that Wisdom Christology was the backbone of Nicene Trinitarian Christology--yet the writings of the Fathers nearly scream it. if this is the case, then J.P.'s chapter on "Sonship and Separation" receives strong confirmatory power from the history of the Church. we see what he claims to be the Christology of the first century fighting and active in the fourth, utilizing the exact same theological template.
peace.

Kevin W. Graham

April 10th 2003, 10:32 PM

Hey mayne,

== Nah, nah, not because of disagreement but because you're going to have to match the brains of the outfit I use -- Witherington, Wright, the entire crowd.

The problem with this scenario is that it isn't us vs. them. It is us vs. YOU. Sure, you're going to cite other scholars, but that doesn't make you synonymous with them. Besides, just what do you think we're going to be doing? Citing our own opinions the whole time with "no it ain't" arguments? Or citing LDS scholars alone? Of course not. Of course you're going to think your scholars are the ones with the most "brains," but this doesn't really do much by way of argument. There are plenty of scholars who disagree, who I'm sure scored higher on their IQ test than say, Ben Witherington. Those who teach and finer colleges than say, a Theological Seminary in Kentucky. But it is rather silly to use this as some sort of measuring stick for whose scholars are right and whose are wrong.

== No offense, dewd, but come on -- it took me over two years to do my book!

Which was extremely quick given your foreknowledge of LDS issues.

== Sure, you got a team, but I'll be a little hurt if you get done TOO quickly!

Why? You bring up a new argument here and there sure, and credit is given where it is due. But these issues have been hashed out by LDS apologetics for more than a century now. You're not going to get away with the assumption that your book nailed the coffin shut and LDS apologetics has died forever, simply because you added a twist to an existing argument, or simply made it more complex. This is the same attitude expressed by TNMC authors. An attitude the guys at FARMS thought was humorous. Some responses to your arguments required exhaustive research, but certainly not all of them. If Cook had done chapter one it would be finished already. In fact I should have just posted his chapter in M201 as a response. But mine is longer than probably need be and took me about a month - you know how I like to drone on and on. :smile:

Kevin Barney threw his chapter together in a week, and I think Ostler did his in a whopping 3 days. On many occasions you do not familiarize yourself with the best LDS responses, and from what I can tell, you prefer to pick on the easier arguments (a la Griffith/Watson). You stated that your book was intended to address the "pop" apologetics instead of the cream of the crop. Well, why didn't you just go ahead and take them on too if they are so out of their league?

== Aside from Cook, have you got any "true" academics on the team?

Depends on how you mean. Are you referring to those being cited or those doing the responding? Some of them are the very scholars you used to support your arguments. Gerhard von Rad ring a bell? You know me. I don't bring down the hammer like you have with others for using scholars who disagree with said conclusions.( And you should probably thank me that I didn't give this chapter to Bickmore- he would have probably made a mountain of this given yrou past criticisms of his usage of scholarship). :smile:

Anyway, I don't expect you to take it easy on us in your responses. That would be way out of character for you, no matter how wrong you might be. :smile:

Bill the Cat

April 10th 2003, 10:49 PM

Ok, OK, OK. I'm sorry I started this.... Everyone take the gloves off. Please!!! The simple fact is that we see things one way, LDS see them another. We have respected authorities, and LDS have respected authorities. It's like I said from Fee, Anyone can find at least 1 scholar to agree with their point. As far as the other issues, I will handle them in a while. I am on call right now and I may not be able to post till about 2 AM

Marc Schindler

April 10th 2003, 11:23 PM

Since Kevin has taken my name "in vain" :smile: the least I can do is show up, do a brief bow and then do what netiquette suggests, which is lurk for a while to get the flavour of things. I'm here mostly to learn.

I will just add that JP should be glad about something that happened without him knowing it (until now): I was divided about how to explain someone to my audience (those who will be reading FAIR's criticism of his Mormon Defenders). Should I apologize on his behalf and explain that people should just skip over references to Nebuchadnezzar as "Nebbie" as being a lovable eccentricity, such as one finds in uncles, or should I tear into him for such. At first I chose the latter until someone talked me out of it.

But when you make deliberately make yourself look like a marshmallow it's hard to keep out of hot...cocoa. Praise the Lord, he gave me strength to resist the temptation :brow:

So, back into lurkdom while I watch y'all for a while.

kiwimac

April 11th 2003, 01:06 AM

I am not jealous! <said jealously!>

Interesting discussion in this thread actually, been strangely enjoying it!

Kiwimac

Bill the Cat

April 11th 2003, 01:08 AM

good to know. I hope I've not been acusatory or unpleasant. I'm just debating the Scriptures as Paul exampled

Bill the Cat

April 11th 2003, 02:05 AM

Can you at least admit that the Trinity today would be nonexistent without the creeds/councils?

Well I could ask you the same thing. Are you so sure it wouldn't. I'm fairly confident that it would.

They are legends in their own minds, yes. But the scholars I cite are world class.

As are the ones I quoted. And I just dug out my Gordon Fee books for some more info that I had forgotten.

If the one True God means only God in existence, then Jesus is not this God since he calls his Father the one True God. Therefore Jesus cannot be God since His Father is teh only God in existence. I know this conflicts with the Trinity but that IS the point.

So if you know it contradicts, why bring it up. I will just respond that Jesus is God and Doubting Thomas agrees with me.

So which comes first, the scripture as it reads, or the 4th century concept of a Trinity which serves as its interpreter?

Well, the concept is not 4th century. Dr. Fee points to several trinitarian formulations in the epistles, but the name it came to be called by was not coined until then. The scriptures are not always plain in their teaching. The controversy over James' faith without works passage is a prime example.

My beef is that we are always told "sola scriptura", but that isn't really true. Put 50 guys in a room with a Bible and see how many come out with a Trinitarian understanding as defined by the Greek councils.

Is that 50 construction workers or 50 theologians? The scriptures were meant to be taught to the weaker in faith, not just given to them at salvation and let them go. How many would understand just from reading the "Before Abraham was, I AM" statement made by Jesus?

This isn't true, again. I don't see the Trinity at all in the scriptures. Most people don't who do not already come from that traditional background. Many Trinitarian scholars admit that the Bible doesn't explicitly teach it. It must be read into the Bible.

Because you choose to think of the trinity as absurd, you will never see it in the scriptures. Many trinitarian scholars whom I've had the pleasure to speak with have said the Bible teaches it quite clearly. You don't think so because you are predisposed to look at it with mistrust.

These explanations appear to be little more than excuses. If it conflicts, label it a "paradox" and consign it to the "mystery of God" bin which is essentially the usual take on the Trinity.
Sorry, but you do the same thing. If it doesn't quite jive, just chalk it up to "not been revealed" or mystery. Look at your statement about Heavenly Mom. They seem little more than excuses to me. And these excuses as you call them have satisfied the likes of Gordon Fee, Douglas Moo, and a host of other well respected scholars.

The Geneva Bible translators of 1560 came from the same theology as do most Evangelicals.
So it's the theology in general that you have a problem with, not just Evangelicals. Well, I guess the Catholics are just as bad in your book. No?

EXACTLY! So since you agree that all things, which are reconciled to Christ are do not include demons and Satan(Col 1:20-22), then why should they be included in the "all things" of Col 1:15-16? All things means all thinsg right? Or is it just when it conforms to a particular theological tenet?
We're back to the olam thing again huh? A disagreeing on what a particular phrase means. "All things" can be like "all the world." And we disagree how broad that scope is.

But for my point, the end of Col 1:20 says that whether they be in Heaven or Earth. Nothing is said of the inhabitants of hell, whether fallen angels, or the spirits of wicked men who are there. Now, as much as you hate the older commentaries, Adam Clark said:
To reconcile all things unto himself - The enmity was on the part of the creature; though God is angry with the wicked every day, yet he is never unwilling to be reconciled. But man, whose carnal mind is enmity to God, is naturally averse from this reconciliation; it requires, therefore, the blood of the cross to atone for the sin, and the influence of the Spirit to reconcile the transgressor to him against whom he has offended!

And the same pas is used in Col 1:18 as well, and acording to your "limited" all things not meaning all things, then there are some things that He will not have the Preeminence in.

No, since God is called an end, does this mean he has an end? Not at all. I'm saying that "beginning" in understood in context with the creation. It says nothing of God's activity prior to that event. Nor does it say anything about His mode of existence, or His existence at all.
And to follow, since God is called the beginning, does that mean He has a beginning? There was no "prior" to the beginning. God has always been. Hence the name, I AM.

Didn't say that either. To tell you the truth I don't know if gods in heaven are all worshipped or not. But I know it is biblical to assume that we will be worshipped.

I just read an article on the controversy over the Deut passage in the DSS. I think that we are misunderstanding each other when we say the word God. When I say God, I mean the one the only, most High God. you speak of gods, as do the DSS, and the Ugarit texts, of the council. The article I read cleared that up for me. Those who were considered on the council are what were called elohim, but later became called just angels.

http://www.michaelsheiser.com/mshv1n1dcoverview.pdf
In regard to the fear of polytheism with respect to this material, the biblical council amounts to polytheism only if one makes two assertions: (1) "real" monotheism requires the intellectual rejection of the existence of all other gods, as opposed to a declaration of Yahweh's incomparability with respect to all other gods; (2) Israelites could not or did not differentiate divine beings according to certain attributes, so as to create a theology where one god was invariably and perpetually superior to all others in distinct, qualitative ways.

Yahweh was considered incomparable and possessed certain attributes that infallibly and perpetually distinguished Him from the other ()elohim) council members. Yahweh was therefore the only "true" deity as defined by his exclusive possession of certain attributes. Sole possession of attributes like pre-existence, omnipotence in creation of all that is, and ultimate sovereignty could intellectually mingle with the existence of other ()elohim) in the mind of the believing Israelite or Jew because Yahweh had created all the other ()elohim) (Neh. 9:6).

I recommend reading this article. It was very informative.

To tell you the truth I don't know if gods in heaven are all worshipped or not. But I know it is biblical to assume that we will be worshipped.

And again we disagree. Every instance in the Bible where someone other than God Himself was worshipped we see the same response
"Rev 22:9 But he said to me, 'Do not do that. I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brethren the prophets and of those who heed the words of this book. Worship God'."

Rev 3:9 "Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet , and to know that I have loved thee"

proskuneō: worship
Thayer Definition:
1) to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence
2) among the Orientals, especially the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence
3) in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication
3a) used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank

So it is not necessarily God-like worship as much as respect of our position from those who are not of God's family, but Satan's

The best thing about this letter is that it still exists, and has been deemed a forgery by experts. The Strang issue is really a non-issue.

from John Jason Hajicek
I am a full-time professional historian with an expertise in rare Mormon documents (see my home page at http://www.Mormonism.com), and a focus on the Mormon succession and minor Mormon churches. In fact, I have concluded that the letter of appointment allegedly written by Joseph Smith just before he died, is authentic and genuine in all of its physical properties. Indeed, the letter is apparently in the hand of Joseph himself, and has a genuine Nauvoo postmark. The historical context, grammar, style, and content of the letter fit accurately into the life of Joseph Smith and the greater Nauvoo Mormon scene.

From a web Q&A
Someone posted: "First, the letter does not in fact to me sound like the language of the Prophet from 1844. If you care, study the Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, complied by Dean Jessee, or the Papers of Joseph, two volumes, compiled by the same author."

**Actually, it was the typescripts in these volumes that aided me in my own line-by-line analysis of the style of the letter. There are remarkable, nearly exact, parallels in private letters written by Joseph Smith, to which no forger would have had access in 1844.

Someone posted: "‘There are a number of questionable facets about this alleged letter from the Prophet. Only the signature of the letter appeared to be in Joseph Smith’s handwriting.’"

**The signature and the entire letter are in the same hand, based on my personal examination of the letter at Yale University.

D&C 124:20 And again, verily I say unto you, my servant George Miller is without guile; he may be trusted because of the integrity of his heart; and for the love which he has to my testimony I, the Lord, love him.

George Miller sustained James Strang as Joseph Smith Jr.'s successor.

A non issue? perhaps you could talk to this guy and let me know how it goes.

Kevin W. Graham

April 11th 2003, 03:48 AM

== Well I could ask you the same thing. Are you so sure it wouldn't. I'm fairly confident that it would.

Positive.

== As are the ones I quoted. And I just dug out my Gordon Fee books for some more info that I had forgotten.

Some are, and some scholars I use to further my point are actually Evangelical.

== So if you know it contradicts, why bring it up. I will just respond that Jesus is God and Doubting Thomas agrees with me.

Jesus was looked upon as the Angel of Yahweh. The Wisdom of God. The representative of God who for the first time ever, appeared in the flesh. Like the OT Angel of Yahweh, He is spoken of as God in the first person because He represents God. He is His Word.. To refer to Him as God is entirely appropriate, but it is always important to distinguish Him from the one True God. In teh OT there was the Angel of Yahweh and then the Most High God. This tradition continued through the NT. To suggest the phrase "My Lord my God" meant to introduce an entirely new theology of God's Trinitarian nature, is to really say something alien to the context, to say nothing of Jewish tradition.

== Well, the concept is not 4th century. Dr. Fee points to several trinitarian formulations in the epistles, but the name it came to be called by was not coined until then.

Trinitarian scholars will naturally try to discover Trinitarian "elements" in the scriptures. Then their task is to develop "formulations." Something only the Greeks could figure out much later on apparently.

== The scriptures are not always plain in their teaching. The controversy over James' faith without works passage is a prime example.

That is a horrible excuse. Can we go by the scriptures alone or not?

== Is that 50 construction workers or 50 theologians?

Either one. So long as both groups come from no predisposed concepts of the Trinity. You're not going to find any theologians who fall into that category.

== Because you choose to think of the trinity as absurd, you will never see it in the scriptures.

I think of it as a mathematical impossibility and an illogical paradox. Many scholars will agree. Even Trinitarain scholars admit the paradox it presents. What I find absurd is teh notion that this doctrine, which is impossible to fully comprehend, must be accepted in its entirety before one can be called a Christian or be saved. I know you may not hold to this position, but the vast maority of the Evangelical network most certainly does.

== Many trinitarian scholars whom I've had the pleasure to speak with have said the Bible teaches it quite clearly. You don't think so because you are predisposed to look at it with mistrust.

Give me a break. How many of these Trinitarian scholars grew up with Trinitarian theology? Is it really hard to fathom Trinitarian scholars saying the Bible teaches it? Good grief. I woudl hope they would say that. But not all of them do. In fact, I would argue that the cream of the crop in scholarship would never make a careless declaration such as that. There is nothing "clear" about the Trinity in the Bible.

== Sorry, but you do the same thing. If it doesn't quite jive, just chalk it up to "not been revealed" or mystery. Look at your statement about Heavenly Mom. They seem little more than excuses to me. And these excuses as you call them have satisfied the likes of Gordon Fee, Douglas Moo, and a host of other well respected scholars.

Your wrong. My position doesn't require a biblical basis for any doctrine, whereas yours does! So there is no excuse on my part since it is consistent with my theology. That is the difference between LDS and traditional Christians. One relies on revelation and scriptures, and one relies on the Bible alone.

== "All things" can be like "all the world." And we disagree how broad that scope is.

You're the one who brought up this verse. Are you going to cite another 200 year old Bible commentary that says all things has a dual meaning? If all things means all things in vs 15, then it means "all things" in vs 22. It doesn't mean "all the world", which makes no sense.

== But for my point, the end of Col 1:20 says that whether they be in Heaven or Earth. Nothing is said of the inhabitants of hell, whether fallen angels, or the spirits of wicked men who are there.

You're not serious. This sounds like the argument, "He isn't subordinate, only "functionally" subordinate." Splitting hairs are we? Does all things mean all things or doesn't it? And by the way, hell is in the earth according to the early Christians.

== Now, as much as you hate the older commentaries, Adam Clark said:

Whizzzzzzzzzzz... has the spinning stopped yet? :smile:

== I just read an article on the controversy over the Deut passage in the DSS. I think that we are misunderstanding each other when we say the word God. When I say God, I mean the one the only, most High God. you speak of gods, as do the DSS, and the Ugarit texts, of the council. The article I read cleared that up for me.

Ok then, we agree that other gods exist?

== Those who were considered on the council are what were called elohim, but later became called just angels.

This was only due to translation. The Hebrew elohim doesn't mean angels/messenger. There is a perfectly good Hebrew term for that: malak. But the Greek LXX translates the elohim as angellos, which means messenger. Angel is a function while elohim is not. In Greek the angels could be either human or gods, while in Hebrew elohim are always deities. So the Greek caused more confusion, and I believe this was done for intentionally. For example, when Hebrews says Christ was created "lower than the angels," the version found in the Psalms, from which it quotes, says "lower than the Gods."

== In regard to the fear of polytheism with respect to this material, the biblical council amounts to polytheism only if one makes two assertions:

Well first we have to define our polytheism. Different people understand it differently. JP and I went through this last year.

== Yahweh was considered incomparable and possessed certain attributes that infallibly and perpetually distinguished Him from the other ()elohim) council members.

But he was only different in power, not in KIND. This is how the ancients understood the Elohim. As literal offspring of the Most High God. Peter Hayman argues this position if you want a copy of his article.

== Yahweh was therefore the only "true" deity as defined by his exclusive possession of certain attributes.

No, there was never any distinction between deity and true deity. There was never an ontological distinction between teh elohim as being real and nonexistent.

== Sole possession of attributes like pre-existence, omnipotence in creation of all that is, and ultimate sovereignty could intellectually mingle with the existence of other ()elohim) in the mind of the believing Israelite or Jew because Yahweh had created all the other ()elohim) (Neh. 9:6).

He created them sure, prior to the creation of the earth. They were understood as being like him since they were considered to be His children. Yahweh was initially the first born of El Elyon, and all those other gods were just lower in authority. Yahweh's people was Israel, but He eventually inherited all nations and became the ONLY God as they all began to reject the older gods. His name eventually became infused with El Elyon and it is nearly impossible to distinguish between the two using the OT alone. The distinctions between the two is one factor that fueled the JEDP. Of course Trinitarains will simply interpret the inconsistency as evidence for the Trinity - they are used interchangeably because they are the same being - and downplay the texual problems that undermine this assumption. Deut 32:8-9 is a perfect example. But to seek thsi sort of evidence from ancient Judaism speaks more of desperation to find scriptural support, than anything else.

== I recommend reading this article. It was very informative.

I had already read it. In fact I have three of his articles on file, including one dedicated solely to Deut 32:8-9. Want a copy?

== And again we disagree. Every instance in the Bible where someone other than God Himself was worshipped we see the same response "Rev 22:9 But he said to me, 'Do not do that. I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brethren the prophets and of those who heed the words of this book. Worship God'."

You're not dealing with Rev 3:9 that I offered. Pointing out contradictions in scripture is far more problematic for you than it is for me. I don't come from the inerrancy paradigm.

== So it is not necessarily God-like worship as much as respect of our position from those who are not of God's family, but Satan's

You're joking right? Now the worship has dual meanings? Good grief, worship means to bow down, adore, pray to, to WORSHIP. No need to make a science out of this one word. Citing theological dictionaries won't do it. You love dictionary.com so much, why not trust it in this instance? There is nothing to indicate that the worship here is any different from the worship offered to any of the other elohim, including the Most High. It says absolutely nothing about the position of the worshipped deity. It just says "worship." We are to be worshipped because He loves us. It is that simple.

== A non issue? perhaps you could talk to this guy and let me know how it goes

Yes, it is a non-issue, and to be frank, so is this guy. If I had a nickel everytime someone proclaimed to be a "Mormon Historian", and used this as evidence that their refuted argument somehow stands true, then I'd be rich. First of all, who is this guy? Hardly anything on his website gives us credentials as a handwriting expert. Collecting Mormon documents hardly makes you an "expert" in the field of interpreting Mormon documents. It only makes you an expert collector.

And as a "professional historian" one would expect degrees reflecting this boast. But instead we get a list of three colleges he attended while studying .. History? No, he studied Economics. Even worse, there is no indication that he even completed his undergrade degree. He also said, "I have been a visiting researcher at Harvard University, Yale University, Princeton University, the Newberry Library (Chicago), the Huntington Library (San Marino, California), the New York Public Library, the Union Theological Seminary (New York City), Southern Methodist University, Brigham Young University, the University of Michigan, and other academic institutions. "

Translation = I have been hanging around these schools volunteering my time as an independant researcher (library monkey) so I can put these big name schools on my resume to make me sound more professional than I really am.

Anyway, according to a REAL Mormon Historian, (and one that anti-Mormons would welcome with Open arms) Michael Quinn had this to say:
Brigham Young in 1846 denounced the entire letter as a forgery : "Every person acquainted with Joseph Smith, and his style of dictation and writing might readily know that he never wrote nor caused to be written that letter to Strang." Modern analysts of the document have not only agreed with that verdict, but have also judged the signature of Joseph Smith on the letter to be a forgery. In addition to the letter, Strang also claimed that he had been ordained successor by an angel. Persisting in his claims, he was excommunicated by the branch at Florence, Michigan, on 5 August 1844, an action that was repeated by the apostles at Nauvoo.

Eventually, Strang gave up his commission to establish a stake in Wisconsin, and instead built a theocratic community on Beaver Island, Michigan, where more than two thousand followers assembled. Strang alienated many of his own followers, however, by advancing to the highest leadership in his organization such avowed enemies of the Prophet Joseph Smith as William E. McLellin and John C. Bennett, by introducing a form of endowment ritual and the practice of polygamy, and by his public coronation as king in 1850. Strang was murdered by disgruntled followers and non-Mormons in 1856. Although he survived his assassination long enough to appoint a successor, he steadfastly refused to do so, and his erstwhile dynamic following disintegrated after his death. In 1897, one of Strang's apostles ordained a man to be a presiding high priest, and subsequent ordinations have continued to provide leadership to a devoted band of approximately 200 Strangites.

The Mormon Succession Crisis of 1844 by D. Michael Quinn Fn, BYU Studies, vol. 16 (1975-1976), Number 1 - Autumn 1975 195.)

Bill the Cat

April 11th 2003, 05:29 AM

Today @ 03:48 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=62747#post62747)
Kevin W. Graham:

== Well I could ask you the same thing. Are you so sure it wouldn't. I'm fairly confident that it would.

Positive.

Well, we disagree.

== As are the ones I quoted. And I just dug out my Gordon Fee books for some more info that I had forgotten.

Some are, and some scholars I use to further my point are actually Evangelical.

Well that's fancy. Once again, the Fee paraphrase applies.

== So if you know it contradicts, why bring it up. I will just respond that Jesus is God and Doubting Thomas agrees with me.

Jesus was looked upon as the Angel of Yahweh. The Wisdom of God. The representative of God who for the first time ever, appeared in the flesh. Like the OT Angel of Yahweh, He is spoken of as God in the first person because He represents God.

And made some statements in the first person that only the Most High could make.

He is His Word..

And what does that mean to you?

To refer to Him as God is entirely appropriate, but it is always important to distinguish Him from the one True God. In teh OT there was the Angel of Yahweh and then the Most High God.

The Angel was the visible theophany of God. No one has ever seen "the one true God" in His fullest form, only veiled in theophanies.

This tradition continued through the NT. To suggest the phrase "My Lord my God" meant to introduce an entirely new theology of God's Trinitarian nature, is to really say something alien to the context, to say nothing of Jewish tradition.

It was blasphemy if He were not God.

== Well, the concept is not 4th century. Dr. Fee points to several trinitarian formulations in the epistles, but the name it came to be called by was not coined until then.

Trinitarian scholars will naturally try to discover Trinitarian "elements" in the scriptures. Then their task is to develop "formulations." Something only the Greeks could figure out much later on apparently.

Well, why could believing Greeks not receive revelation the same way you claim that the LDS do? How do you know that God Himself did not reveal this idea to them? You don't. To claim exclusive revelation is elitist. I sure don't.

== The scriptures are not always plain in their teaching. The controversy over James' faith without works passage is a prime example.

That is a horrible excuse. Can we go by the scriptures alone or not?

Not without teaching, or else Jesus would have just told the Disciples to open a printing shop and do a mass mailer. Jesus instructed them to make other disciples by teaching them the Word.

== Is that 50 construction workers or 50 theologians?

Either one. So long as both groups come from no predisposed concepts of the Trinity. You're not going to find any theologians who fall into that category.

Once again, who today can sit in a room and read King James English. Certainly not the construction worker, unless this is another one of those Joe Millionaire things.

== Because you choose to think of the trinity as absurd, you will never see it in the scriptures.

I think of it as a mathematical impossibility and an illogical paradox. Many scholars will agree. Even Trinitarain scholars admit the paradox it presents. What I find absurd is teh notion that this doctrine, which is impossible to fully comprehend, must be accepted in its entirety before one can be called a Christian or be saved. I know you may not hold to this position, but the vast maority of the Evangelical network most certainly does.

The fact that God can walk on water was an illogical paradox too. He chose to reveal Himself in this way. As far as adopting the trinity in it's entirity, I am undecided until I read the entire Athanasian Creed. I do think that to believe in Jesus, you must know who He is, otherwise, anyone can claim Him, even the Muslims.

== Many trinitarian scholars whom I've had the pleasure to speak with have said the Bible teaches it quite clearly. You don't think so because you are predisposed to look at it with mistrust.

Give me a break. How many of these Trinitarian scholars grew up with Trinitarian theology? Is it really hard to fathom Trinitarian scholars saying the Bible teaches it? Good grief. I woudl hope they would say that. But not all of them do. In fact, I would argue that the cream of the crop in scholarship would never make a careless declaration such as that. There is nothing "clear" about the Trinity in the Bible.
Then I guess you disagree with Gordon Fee. And He has studied the Scriptures longer than both of us have been alive combined.

Also, why are you getting that tone? It seems like the niceties I have enjoyed thus far are eroding. Is that true?

== Sorry, but you do the same thing. If it doesn't quite jive, just chalk it up to "not been revealed" or mystery. Look at your statement about Heavenly Mom. They seem little more than excuses to me. And these excuses as you call them have satisfied the likes of Gordon Fee, Douglas Moo, and a host of other well respected scholars.

Your wrong. My position doesn't require a biblical basis for any doctrine, whereas yours does! So there is no excuse on my part since it is consistent with my theology. That is the difference between LDS and traditional Christians. One relies on revelation and scriptures, and one relies on the Bible alone.

It seems like LDS rely strictly on revelation, which can be changed, and then scripture if it suits.

== "All things" can be like "all the world." And we disagree how broad that scope is.

You're the one who brought up this verse. Are you going to cite another 200 year old Bible commentary that says all things has a dual meaning?

As opposed to citing a 2000 year old book?

If all things means all things in vs 15, then it means "all things" in vs 22. It doesn't mean "all the world", which makes no sense.

And you ignored the "all things" in verse 18

== But for my point, the end of Col 1:20 says that whether they be in Heaven or Earth. Nothing is said of the inhabitants of hell, whether fallen angels, or the spirits of wicked men who are there.

You're not serious. This sounds like the argument, "He isn't subordinate, only "functionally" subordinate." Splitting hairs are we? Does all things mean all things or doesn't it? And by the way, hell is in the earth according to the early Christians.

I'm absolutely serious. You are the one splitting hairs. Will He be preiminent over all things (v18) or not? And by the way, the Greek for "in" earth is epi which means on or upon, not in. And immediately following that is the Greek word en for "in" Heaven meaning in. So In heaven and ON the Earth, but not under.

== Now, as much as you hate the older commentaries, Adam Clark said:

Whizzzzzzzzzzz... has the spinning stopped yet? :smile:

Hey, it works for Jeff Lindsey quoting JFB, so why can't I?

== I just read an article on the controversy over the Deut passage in the DSS. I think that we are misunderstanding each other when we say the word God. When I say God, I mean the one the only, most High God. you speak of gods, as do the DSS, and the Ugarit texts, of the council. The article I read cleared that up for me.

Ok then, we agree that other gods exist?

In a way. I agree that there were those the OT refers to as elohim, but whether they actually exist or not is subjective. To say that the council was comprised of Ba'al or Molech, or Ashtoreth, or any other "territorial" deities worshipped as God is presumrtuous and without Biblical support. But it still doesn't explain why Talmage said:
Elohim, as understood and used in the restored Church or Jesus Christ, is the name-title of God the Eternal Father. . . ."
Talmage, Jesus the Christ, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1962, p. 38

Talmage thought that Elohim was H.F.'s name, not just a title word meaning god. So what's changed?

== Those who were considered on the council are what were called elohim, but later became called just angels.

This was only due to translation. The Hebrew elohim doesn't mean angels/messenger. There is a perfectly good Hebrew term for that: malak. But the Greek LXX translates the elohim as angellos, which means messenger. Angel is a function while elohim is not. In Greek the angels could be either human or gods, while in Hebrew elohim are always deities. So the Greek caused more confusion, and I believe this was done for intentionally. For example, when Hebrews says Christ was created "lower than the angels," the version found in the Psalms, from which it quotes, says "lower than the Gods."

== In regard to the fear of polytheism with respect to this material, the biblical council amounts to polytheism only if one makes two assertions:

Well first we have to define our polytheism. Different people understand it differently. JP and I went through this last year.

== Yahweh was considered incomparable and possessed certain attributes that infallibly and perpetually distinguished Him from the other ()elohim) council members.

But he was only different in power, not in KIND. This is how the ancients understood the Elohim. As literal offspring of the Most High God. Peter Hayman argues this position if you want a copy of his article.

== Yahweh was therefore the only "true" deity as defined by his exclusive possession of certain attributes.

No, there was never any distinction between deity and true deity. There was never an ontological distinction between teh elohim as being real and nonexistent.

== Sole possession of attributes like pre-existence, omnipotence in creation of all that is, and ultimate sovereignty could intellectually mingle with the existence of other ()elohim) in the mind of the believing Israelite or Jew because Yahweh had created all the other ()elohim) (Neh. 9:6).

He created them sure, prior to the creation of the earth. They were understood as being like him since they were considered to be His children. Yahweh was initially the first born of El Elyon, and all those other gods were just lower in authority. Yahweh's people was Israel, but He eventually inherited all nations and became the ONLY God as they all began to reject the older gods. His name eventually became infused with El Elyon and it is nearly impossible to distinguish between the two using the OT alone. The distinctions between the two is one factor that fueled the JEDP. Of course Trinitarains will simply interpret the inconsistency as evidence for the Trinity - they are used interchangeably because they are the same being - and downplay the texual problems that undermine this assumption. Deut 32:8-9 is a perfect example. But to seek thsi sort of evidence from ancient Judaism speaks more of desperation to find scriptural support, than anything else.

All of the comments were actually from the article, not mine.

== I recommend reading this article. It was very informative.

I had already read it. In fact I have three of his articles on file, including one dedicated solely to Deut 32:8-9. Want a copy?

Pass. I've gotten the jist of the confusion already and really don't need more. Overkill, ya know.

== And again we disagree. Every instance in the Bible where someone other than God Himself was worshipped we see the same response "Rev 22:9 But he said to me, 'Do not do that. I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brethren the prophets and of those who heed the words of this book. Worship God'."

You're not dealing with Rev 3:9 that I offered. Pointing out contradictions in scripture is far more problematic for you than it is for me. I don't come from the inerrancy paradigm.

Convenient. I dealt with Rev 3:9 just fine. Thayer shows the multiple uses of the word proskuneō. And the synagogue of Satan will show us respect as one shows a superior. So what? Do you worship your wife now the way you worship God? Did you get down on one knee? proskuneō at it's finest.

== So it is not necessarily God-like worship as much as respect of our position from those who are not of God's family, but Satan's

You're joking right? Now the worship has dual meanings? Good grief, worship means to bow down, adore, pray to, to WORSHIP.

really? Then I guess you prayed to your wife when you proposed. proskuneō simply means to kneel or prostrate yourself. Acts 10:25. Cornelius "worshipped" Peter. Did he pray to Peter? Nope.

No need to make a science out of this one word. Citing theological dictionaries won't do it. You love dictionary.com so much, why not trust it in this instance?

Oh well, since you insist:
1)To honor and love as a deity.
2)To regard with ardent or adoring esteem or devotion. See Synonyms at revere

Notice the DUAL meaning. :lol: The first is how we deal with God, the second is how we deal with others or they deal with us.

There is nothing to indicate that the worship here is any different from the worship offered to any of the other elohim, including the Most High. It says absolutely nothing about the position of the worshipped deity. It just says "worship." We are to be worshipped because He loves us. It is that simple.

We are bowed down to because we are in a higher position related to God than those that are of Satan who will be bowing to us.

== A non issue? perhaps you could talk to this guy and let me know how it goes

Yes, it is a non-issue, and to be frank, so is this guy. If I had a nickel everytime someone proclaimed to be a "Mormon Historian", and used this as evidence that their refuted argument somehow stands true, then I'd be rich. First of all, who is this guy? Hardly anything on his website gives us credentials as a handwriting expert. Collecting Mormon documents hardly makes you an "expert" in the field of interpreting Mormon documents. It only makes you an expert collector.

Thanks for the info. It was the first time I had ever heard of them and I figured I'd get your take on the situation. I'd still like you to address him more directly and let me know how it turns out.

And as a "professional historian" one would expect degrees reflecting this boast. But instead we get a list of three colleges he attended while studying .. History? No, he studied Economics. Even worse, there is no indication that he even completed his undergrade degree. He also said, "I have been a visiting researcher at Harvard University, Yale University, Princeton University, the Newberry Library (Chicago), the Huntington Library (San Marino, California), the New York Public Library, the Union Theological Seminary (New York City), Southern Methodist University, Brigham Young University, the University of Michigan, and other academic institutions. "

Translation = I have been hanging around these schools volunteering my time as an independant researcher (library monkey) so I can put these big name schools on my resume to make me sound more professional than I really am.

Well, I think you may have jumped to judgement too fast. You read his work history, volunteer or not, and assume he doesn't know squat. That's not fair treatment at all. Talk to the guy and then make your determination. I could have written you off immediately as a Mormon, but I chose to listen. Why not offer the same courtesy before you pass such a harsh judgement.

ng to a REAL Mormon Historian, (and one that anti-Mormons would welcome with Open arms) Michael Quinn had this to say:

An interesting quote, but I must say that of course Brigham would denounce the letter. I also find it ironic that Strang claimed to translate plates too and in that translation was serious Chiasms. How did Strang learn of Chiasm?

jpholding

April 11th 2003, 09:21 AM

Yo dewd,

The problem with this scenario is that it isn't us vs. them. It is us vs. YOU. Sure, you're going to cite other scholars, but that doesn't make you synonymous with them. Besides, just what do you think we're going to be doing?

I'll wait and see. :smile: Will you be as disciplined? I hope so. I need an intellectual challenge. Have you seen the crap FTill is pulling over in Religion 101? You ought to come by and comment.

disagree, who I'm sure scored higher on their IQ test than say, Ben Witherington.

You know the man's work? If you did, you might carefully qualify that statement. :brow:

Which was extremely quick given your foreknowledge of LDS issues.

Yeah, BUT -- given my NARROW focus....

Why? You bring up a new argument here and there sure, and credit is given where it is due. But these issues have been hashed out by LDS apologetics for more than a century now.

Eh, what? Who dealt with i.e., image language, Greco-Roman rhetroric, etc in LDS apologetics before? :huh:

You're not going to get away with the assumption that your book nailed the coffin shut and LDS apologetics has died forever,

Do you really think I think that? Heck, if a weasel like Till doesn't die after what I've done to him, I sure don't expect you smarter people like you guys to do so.

On many occasions you do not familiarize yourself with the best LDS responses,

Did what I could. Heck, I asked YOU to help me find 'em, didn't I? I searched FARMS and FAIR archives for subject matter and turned up almost nothing.

Laterz, got atheists to stuff. :rofl:

phantaz sunlyk

April 11th 2003, 05:43 PM

**7** say hey Kevin, may the peace of Christ be with you--

I think of it as a mathematical impossibility and an illogical paradox. Many scholars will agree. Even Trinitarain scholars admit the paradox it presents.

**8** well, okay ...
i challenge you to debate the logical coherence of the Trinity with me. i'll be leaving the 14th, and returning the 20th. if ya want, we can head over into the gym and try to arrange the debate layout afor i go.
but claiming that the Trinity is an illogical paradox is a claim that i won't let stand unchallenged. if you're aware of any other Mormons who may wish to defend your claim, let them know that my challenge is open to them as well.
may the peace of Christ be with you.

Marc Schindler

April 11th 2003, 06:29 PM

Phantaz sunlyk, the term "illogical paradox" is redundant All paradoxes are by their nature illogical. Anyone who can prove *any* "logical paradox" to me, be it the Trinity or any other, has my attention.:brow:

phantaz sunlyk

April 12th 2003, 01:14 PM

**7** say hey Marc Schindler--

Phantaz sunlyk, the term "illogical paradox" is redundant All paradoxes are by their nature illogical.

**8** in my experience "paradox" isn't always anti-logical. i can never see that whereby i myself see--that is a paradox (i can't see my eyes, at most i can see them reflected in a mirror). opposites attract, that is a paradox (i can't stand math or science--the last girl i was with loves both). the concept of "time" is paradoxical (how could there have been a first "moment" without the problem of the actual infinite; how could there not have been...? yet here we are, and time is definitely real...), and so on.
if, however, you insist that the Trinity is illogical, my challenge is open to you as well.
care to take this into the boxing ring?
peace.

Marc Schindler

April 12th 2003, 05:59 PM

My point was simply that all paradoxes are *by definition* illogical. Can you think of an example that isn't? Why is the sociological aphorism that "opposites attract" a paradox? It's either true, or it isn't...or given the nature of sociology, sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. In mathematics a paradox is known as an antinomy. In rhetoric it's argumentum ad absurdum.

Note that I claimed that, according to your own words, trinitarianism is paradoxical, and therefore illogical. But with all due respect you don't seem to have a clear and workable definition of paradox, so discussing trinitarianism might be that fruitful.

greyphilosophy

April 12th 2003, 10:08 PM

Kevin Writes:
"Ahh, so one must first adopt the Trinity model to understand the scriptures.
Funny. I thought the scriptures came first and everything else had to abide by THAT standard, not vice versa."

God through the prophet Isaiah spoke very strongly about the fact that there is only one God. Later when Christ came He claimed to be God. If we believe that it is not in the nature of the God of Isaiah to lie or deceive, and we believe that Christ is God, then we are forced to piece together a trinitarian view (the Spirit's will becomming known after pentacost).

When we try and interpret latter scriptures good hermeneutics requires us to look at the context those scriptures were given to us in. The unity/oneness of God was already provided by Isaiah, and it would be fallacious to try and take new ideas and then try and modify the context so our new ideas will work.

Kevin also writes:
"I think of it as a mathematical impossibility and an illogical paradox. Many scholars will agree. Even Trinitarain scholars admit the paradox it presents. What I find absurd is teh notion that this doctrine, which is impossible to fully comprehend, must be accepted in its entirety before one can be called a Christian or be saved. I know you may not hold to this position, but the vast maority of the Evangelical network most certainly does."

I think your statement here might be multi-faceted, so if I approach it wrong let me know. God is impossible to fully comprehend. We as finite beings have limited understanding potential. God being infinite will simply not fit into our limited understanding. Therefor God is impossible to fully comprehend. Even without full understanding of God we must believe in God to be called believers of God, and from within that belief to be saved.

As far as mathematical impossiblity goes, I'm not so sure. One of the theories about faster than light travel is that in order to travel faster than the speed of light would require all the energy in the universe. God having created the universe must have access to a source of energy which is greater than the universe. Therefor it is within the potential for God to travel faster than the speed of light. Being able to travel faster than the speed of light would allow God to be able to appear in two places at the same time. In short, God can be in two places at the same time because He is God and He can do that.

Marc Schindler

April 12th 2003, 10:22 PM

This is proof-texting, and proves nothing. Where do you see in the Bible the three persons but one substance before the 3rd century+ creeds? You don't, unless you already believe in it and retroject that anachronistic belief into patterns of scriptures that have nothing to do with each other. It's the *pattern* that demonstrates trinitarianism, not the scriptures per se.

Fr. Raymond Brown, the dean of Johannine writings, pointed this out in his Anchor Bible on John 1:1.

greyphilosophy

April 12th 2003, 11:08 PM

Today @ 03:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=64639#post64639)
Marc Schindler:

This is proof-texting, and proves nothing. Where do you see in the Bible the three persons but one substance before the 3rd century+ creeds? You don't, unless you already believe in it and retroject that anachronistic belief into patterns of scriptures that have nothing to do with each other. It's the *pattern* that demonstrates trinitarianism, not the scriptures per se.

Fr. Raymond Brown, the dean of Johannine writings, pointed this out in his Anchor Bible on John 1:1.

The questions which arise about the nature of God are 1) how many gods are there? 2) is Christ God? 3) Is God the Father God? 4) Is the Holy Spirit God?

Isaiah answers question 1 with the answer 1. There is only one God. From scripture we see that questions 2,3, and 4 are all answered yes, all three are referred to as God.

How other than with a trinity can this be?

phantaz sunlyk

April 13th 2003, 01:19 AM

**8** say hey Marc--

My point was simply that all paradoxes are *by definition* illogical. Can you think of an example that isn't?

**7** no, paradoxes are not by definition illogical. they are statements that at first sight seem so, while at the same time expressing truth. "lest a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies..."

It's either true, or it isn't...

**8** and my claim is that it is true that the doctrine of the Trinity as articulated by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches is not logically incoherent.
if you think otherwise, don't just shout "contradiction"; prove it. take me on in the gym, or find someone to do it for you. if you won't do either, then i simply ask you to modify your statements from "the Trinity is a contradiction" to "the Trinity seems to me to be a contradiction."

Note that I claimed that, according to your own words, trinitarianism is paradoxical, and therefore illogical.

**8** my "own words"? who put them into my mouth without my knowing it?
i didn't even claim that the Trinity reaches the level of paradox--i stated two things; that a paradox is not necessarily a contradiction, and that the Trinity is not illogical.

But with all due respect you don't seem to have a clear and workable definition of paradox, so discussing trinitarianism might be that fruitful.

**7** ummm, howzabout "a seemingly contradictory or absurd statement that expresses a possible truth", courtesy of Webster's.

Where do you see in the Bible the three persons but one substance before the 3rd century+ creeds?

**8** no doctrine is defined until it is violated, and it is so defined in proportion to the questions which are put to it. just as Paul wrote specific letters to particular communities in order to, drawing from the original deposit of faith, further elaborate on questions and problems that were then being raised, so too must the Church ever define its beliefs in light of the questions and problems that arise.

You don't, unless you already believe in it and retroject that anachronistic belief into patterns of scriptures that have nothing to do with each other.

**7** two things about this.
first, do you fault the authors of the NT for lifting OT passages out of their (literal) context in order to apply them to Christ? to charge a Christian with reading his Bible in light of his belief is to put the Apostles on trial. tell me who doesn't, and tell me why we shouldn't?
this isn't to say that anything goes when it comes to exegesis, for the simple reason that Christ did, in fact, promise that the Church would never die, and that the Paraclete would lead it into all truth.
so where was your Ekklesia in the intervening period between Pentecost and the 19th century? where are the writings? who stood on your behalf at the Council of Elvira, or Nicea, or Smirnia, or Constantinople, or Ephesus? what canyon dawned and then closed ex nihilo within the course of history to swallow them up, and any trace that they ever existed at all?

It's the *pattern* that demonstrates trinitarianism, not the scriptures per se.

**7** it was the pattern of Christian life and worship that demonstrated the Trinity, and the Scriptures understood in light of their historio-theological context.
Scripture is not a Catechism--it stands in relation to the articulation and definition of doctrine as a seed does in relation to a tree.

Fr. Raymond Brown, the dean of Johannine writings, pointed this out in his Anchor Bible on John 1:1.

**8** and re the comment on context above, Fr. Brown also thoroughly demonstrates that Jn. 1:1--and indeed the whole of John--is saturated in Wisdom theology, which is the beginning and end of Trinitarian Christology.
may the peace of Christ be with you.
"Man created art, lest he perish from the truth", Nietzsche

Marc Schindler

April 13th 2003, 02:11 AM

I have a definition of paradox, and provided it: as the logical equivalent of what we in mathematics call an antinomy, a reductio ad absurdum.

When you get one part of your argument from Book A, another part from Book B and another part from Book C, that's proof-texting. Hardly a ringing endorsement for anything inherent in the text, but rather evidence of an overlying pattern that's known as retrojected readings.

phantaz sunlyk

April 13th 2003, 11:19 AM

**7** yo, Marc, still avoiding the issue and the challenge i see.

I have a definition of paradox, and provided it:

**8** site a source :thumb:

as the logical equivalent of what we in mathematics call an antinomy, a reductio ad absurdum.

**7** and i provided a "definition" in much the same way--what those of us who have studied logic, existentialism, and theology call a statement whose contrast immediately grabs the attention, thereby transposing the hearer into a context of wonder wherein to receive the truth expressed within the statement.
at any rate, care to retract your statement that "a paradox is BY DEFINITION a contradiction" in light of the fact that you are, according to Webster, wrong? is that too much to ask?

When you get one part of your argument from Book A, another part from Book B and another part from Book C, that's proof-texting.

**8** like Paul in Galatians?

Hardly a ringing endorsement for anything inherent in the text, but rather evidence of an overlying pattern that's known as retrojected readings.

**7** cf. 2 Cor. 3--the veil of Scripture is taken away only by seeing it through Christ. all Scripture coordinates itself by and to him as though through gravity.
when people reassert themselves time and time again though they have already been answered, and avoid all challenges issued to them, it is evidence of the fact that he or she is avoiding the argument. :ahem:
may the peace of Christ be with you.

Kevin W. Graham

April 13th 2003, 12:36 PM

== Well that's fancy. Once again, the Fee paraphrase applies.

No it doesn't. I'm not using one single scholarly citation to prove a point. As in the Jn 4:24 issues, I provided about a half-dozen. None of whom are LDS.

== And made some statements in the first person that only the Most High could make

Not true. The Angel of Yahweh spoke as the Most High in first person. The Most High spoke through Him and for this reason He was His Word in the most literal sense.

== The Angel was the visible theophany of God. No one has ever seen "the one true God" in His fullest form, only veiled in theophanies.

You'll have to read my review on this.

== It was blasphemy if He were not God.

Not true. The Angel of Yahweh in teh OT was called God also. Again, this all fits into the oldest Jewish tradition.

== Well, why could believing Greeks not receive revelation the same way you claim that the LDS do?

They could have. the thing is, they never made such claims. Their truth came about from head-banging in council meetings.

== How do you know that God Himself did not reveal this idea to them? You don't. To claim exclusive revelation is elitist. I sure don't.

Again, if the church fathers said they all sat down and prayed with the scriptures and came to the same conclusion, then I would probably be convinced. But what they did was far from it. They idolized the emperor at his beckoning egotism, and offered the scriptures as a sacrifice to the Gods of philosophy. To argue that they were receiving revelation, at this point would be ad hoc.

== Not without teaching, or else Jesus would have just told the Disciples to open a printing shop and do a mass mailer.

Then you just undermined the spirit of Protestantism my friend. All they need is scripture. If I've heard it once, I've heard it a thousand times.

== Once again, who today can sit in a room and read King James English. Certainly not the construction worker, unless this is another one of those Joe Millionaire things.

My point was that the Trinity would not be developed or understood from the scriptures alone. Not without the Greek influence that pervaded during its conception.

== The fact that God can walk on water was an illogical paradox too.

Not it isn't. He made the laws of nature. He can manipulate them. Besides, this as nothing to do with God's ontological nature. It doesn't logically follow that if He can perform paradoxical actions, then so must be His nature.

== He chose to reveal Himself in this way.

He never revealed Himself as a paradox.

== As far as adopting the trinity in it's entirity, I am undecided until I read the entire Athanasian Creed. I do think that to believe in Jesus, you must know who He is, otherwise, anyone can claim Him, even the Muslims.

Well I am hoping to learn exactly what the Trinity is. Quite frankly I am at the point of giving up and hoping phantaz sunlyk can help me out.

== Then I guess you disagree with Gordon Fee. And He has studied the Scriptures longer than both of us have been alive combined.

Come on dewd. I can name two dozen scholars who say the exact opposite, and I'm sure a handful of them are smarter than Fee. It is entirely irresponsible for any serious scholar to say the Trinity is "clear" in the Bible. If nothing else, the historical facts contradict this claim, for if it were indeed so clear, then there would be no need for centuries of philosophical/theological development on the issue. A fact that is virtually indisputable today.

== Also, why are you getting that tone? It seems like the niceties I have enjoyed thus far are eroding. Is that true?

No way man. Perish the thought! I made that post at 4am, which was probably a mistake. Sorry if I came off a bit brash.

== It seems like LDS rely strictly on revelation, which can be changed, and then scripture if it suits.

Not really changed, but simply updated or expounded upon. Scripture is never changed.

== As opposed to citing a 2000 year old book?

Sorry, but it is hard to take any forum seriously when it constantly uses John Gill as an authority. I think this is the fifth time I've seen this source being used. For me it reveals just how destitute a position can appear.

== And you ignored the "all things" in verse 18

No I didn't. I'm simply challenging your understanding of what all things encompasses. If it includes all things in existence, including demons and Satan, then these must be included in "all things" in vs 20-22. You can't have it both ways.

== Will He be preiminent over all things (v18) or not?

Sure He will. But I subscribe to the interpretation that He is the firstborn of every creature. Meaning, he was the first creature of heavenly Father, who in turn created everything else under His guidance. His Wisdom. His creative power. Preeminence is included here, but I do not believe it is the sole meaning behind firstborn. If it were, then there would be no reason to reemphasize preeminence in the following verses. It would be redundant. Rev 3:14 tells us that He was the beginning of God's creation, which reinforces this understanding. But anyway, we'll have to agree to disagree.

== Hey, it works for Jeff Lindsey quoting JFB, so why can't I?

JFB?

== In a way. I agree that there were those the OT refers to as elohim, but whether they actually exist or not is subjective.

It wasn't subjective for the Jews, and most scholars will testify to this. As far as this issue goes with scholarship, I'll go to the mat with anyone anyday. Even yoru own Evangelical faithful are beginning to turn on this issue. Why? Because the case is too strong to ignore.

== To say that the council was comprised of Ba'al or Molech, or Ashtoreth, or any other "territorial" deities worshipped as God is presumrtuous and without Biblical support.

You're misinformed, and way out of touch with scholarship on this issue. But again, this is not at all surprising since such issues are hardly entertaining for Evangelicals. So I can't blame you. But if you want to learn more about this topic, perhaps THE authority on this issue would be Catholic Scholar Mark Smith. http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/MSmith_BiblicalMonotheism.htm

== Talmage thought that Elohim was H.F.'s name, not just a title word meaning god. So what's changed?

Nothing has changed. It is HF's name in LDS doctrine, but we also recognize that Elohim means God in plural form. It is a title and a proper name also. Just as Adam in Hebrew means "man" and it was also a proper name for the first man. We don't believe that every instance of elohim in the Bible is referring to HF by name, and this is evident in Talmage's message if you had access to the entire context. He said just prior that,

The name Elohim is of frequent occurrence in the Hebrew texts of the Old Testament, though it is not found in our English versions. In form the word is a Hebrew plural noun; fn but it connotes the plurality of excellence or intensity, rather than distinctively of number. It is expressive of supreme or absolute exaltation and power. ( James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ: A Study of the Messiah and His Mission According to Holy Scriptures Both Ancient and Modern [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1983], 35.)

== Pass. I've gotten the jist of the confusion already and really don't need more. Overkill, ya know.

Oh come on. It isn't nearly as confusing as the Trinity, and I'm willing to give THAT a try. Meet me half way here.

== Notice the DUAL meaning. The first is how we deal with God, the second is how we deal with others or they deal with us.

By dual meaning I'm speaking of two distinct meanings that differ. Like your insistence that olam means both a)long time without a defined limit and then b)one with a defined limit (infinity). It has to be either or in this case, but not with the term worship. All you have done is provide one meaning which is expressed in different ways. It still remains a fact that worship means worship It doesn't matter if it is doen via prayer, kneeling or whatever. You're still giving reverence, paying tribute to something other than the One True God. You said only one God is to be worshipped in a biblical sense yet the Bible says WE will be worshipped. You' can't reconcile this by trying to apply a different type of worship. It is worship nonetheless, and as such, contradicts the claim that we cannot be worshipped.

== We are bowed down to because we are in a higher position related to God than those that are of Satan who will be bowing to us.

Right. We are to be worshipped. Contrary to what you said.

== Thanks for the info. It was the first time I had ever heard of them and I figured I'd get your take on the situation. I'd still like you to address him more directly and let me know how it turns out.

Frankly, I don't think he is worth the time. I actually overestimated the impact the Strangites had had. As it turns out their numbers are down to the hundreds and are dwindling to nonexistence. They have no case. Non-LDS experts have analyzed this "letter" and have classified it as a forgery. And an obvious one at that. This guy is trying to reinvent the wheel with a block of dry mud.

== Well, I think you may have jumped to judgement too fast.

Perhaps, but I would expect anyone who claims to be a "professional historian," to fork up the credentials. It would be one thing if he offered no information on his credentials at all, but he seems to have gone out of his way to do so, and so far the list is not impressive. No degree at all, let alone a doctorate in History. Heck I spent weeks doing research at Ga Tech, but you won't see me using that as a credential. Might as well throw in your High School like "Dr" Walter martin did.

== I could have written you off immediately as a Mormon, but I chose to listen.

If I had professed to be an expert in a field as disciplined as History, then I would expect you to write me off.

== Why not offer the same courtesy before you pass such a harsh judgement.

Because I've seen his argument and it is borderline ludicrous. I at least read it first. You're coming from the perspective that what he says might be true, whereas I'm coming from a background where this issue has been considered dead and buried for decades. His entire argument rests on HIS analysis of JS writings as found in Deen Jesse's work (which I own BTW). Now in order for his analysis to carry any weight with me, he would first have to demonstrate an expertise in this field as well, and then prove why his opinion should outweigh that of many other experts. But he hasn't even been able to establish himself as a recognized authority at all. Collecting Mormon memorabilia makes him a collector and nothing more.

JP said:

==I'll wait and see. Will you be as disciplined? I hope so. I need an intellectual challenge. Have you seen the crap FTill is pulling over in Religion 101? You ought to come by and comment.

What name is Till under?

== You know the man's work? If you did, you might carefully qualify that statement.

Yeah I've read some of his stuff. And you might be surprised how much I agree with him. He understands the Jewish background as do other scholars, but he comes to different conclusions is all. I'd expect no less from a Kentucky Trinitarian :)

And you only used him for two or three chapters I believe.

Phantaz said:
== i challenge you to debate the logical coherence of the Trinity with me. i'll be leaving the 14th, and returning the 20th. if ya want, we can head over into the gym and try to arrange the debate layout afor i go.

Sorry to dissapoint you, but your expertise in this subject matter exceeds whatever knowledge you think I may possess. I've stated it from the outset that I am here to learn about the Trinity, not dictate to you what it really means. The fact that it appears illogical, so far as I understand it, is just a fact that I have to live with. If you feel like you can make sense of it, then please, by all means. This is what I've asked you to do from the beginning. I've heard so many blasted versions of the Trinity by guys claiming to be Athanasius and Nicene junkys, only to find out that many in their own Church disagree.

Before I go I wanted to share a definition from Bill's favored website, dictionary.com:

Paradox:

A seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true: the paradox that standing is more tiring than walking.
One exhibiting inexplicable or contradictory aspects: “The silence of midnight, to speak truly, though apparently a paradox, rung in my ears” (Mary Shelley).
An assertion that is essentially self-contradictory, though based on a valid deduction from acceptable premises.
A statement contrary to received opinion.

PS: I have finals coming up soon and I'm still trying to finish these reviews, so it might be two weeks before I'm able to post again.

JesusFreakVOM

April 13th 2003, 12:51 PM

kevin, u must be a good debater, to be able to defend a religion that says Jesus and Satan are brothers!!!

Marc Schindler

April 13th 2003, 02:14 PM

phantaz sunlyk,

I promised when I first posted that I was going to ease into things, and try to lurk for a while, hence my reluctance to get too involved. I don't know who your friend Webster is, but my friend Oxford defines a paradox as:

1a a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement which, when investigated or explained, may prove to be well-founded or true
b a statement that is actually self-contradictory, absurd or false
2a a phenomenon that exhibits some contradiction or conflict with preconceived notions of what is reasonable or possible...

And an antinomy as:
1 a contradiction between two beliefs or conclusions that are in themselves reasonable; a paradox
2 a conflict between two laws or authorities.

So I stand by my statement, and can't make head nor tails or yours, I'm afraid.

Marc Schindler

April 13th 2003, 02:32 PM

Just another note for phantaz sunlyk: please be patient. I am not the kind of person who's going to invade a new board (new for me) with all guns blazing. I need to see who's around and where the action is. But I will give you a few clues as to where my hot bottoms are. While I am, like Kevin, an LDS apologist, my primary concern is to defend the Restored Gospel from "Biblicists" (Biblical Inerrantists, who are typically conservative Protestants). It is in their position that I see an inherent contradiction. Catholicism (of whatever metropolitan) and even liberal Protestantism are at least internally consistent, even if I don't believe in them. For instance, in the commentary by Fr. Brown that I mentioned, he says John 1:1 is trinitarian if one is already predisposed towards trinitarianism. If, as you seem to indicate, you have some other kind of witness for it than the "God on the prophet's shoulder" dictation model of the Bible, I can argue against it, but I can't say it's self-contradictory because you're bringing to bear your own Glaubenssache, your own set of faith-assumptions.

It's Biblicists who have the self-contradiction because they make the claim their doctrine *is* an und für sich, or existentially the Bible, whereas most other Christians believe the Bible (and possibly other scriptures as the case may be, from deuterocanonical works to the Book of Mormon) are a *record* of God's word. That is precisely the difference between the two shades of paradox you pointed out, and which I confirmed with my dictionary definition.

So hold your fire for a while....

Kevin W. Graham

April 13th 2003, 04:41 PM

When I grow up, I want to be an anti-Mormon and sit outside LDS conferences and protest with big signs that say "Mormonism is worse than homosexuality." I'm bound to be in Jesus' favor then.

Talk about getting a life.

phantaz sunlyk

April 13th 2003, 06:22 PM

the dude in the grey sweater on the far right looks like his time would be better spent on a treadmill.

phantaz sunlyk

April 13th 2003, 06:35 PM

**7** re my post above, i meant "white sweater"
anywho, say hey Marc--

So I stand by my statement, and can't make head nor tails or yours, I'm afraid.

**8** marc, you said that a paradox HAS TO BE a contradiction; from the beginning, i stated that a paradox WASN'T NECESSARILY ILLOGICAL.
here's what YOU SAID yesterday--

My point was simply that all paradoxes are *by definition* illogical. Can you think of an example that isn't?

**7** "by definition"?
the first definition offered by Webster's agrees with me, the first definition of Kevin agrees with me, and the first definition offered by YOURSELF agrees with me. if it is possible for a paradox ONLY TO SEEM ABSURD and POSSIBLY TO BE TRUE, then it follows NECESSARILY that the fact that a statement is paradoxical DOESN'T ENTAIL its being illogical.
an illogical statement HAS TO BE intrinsically incoherent; a paradox DOES NOT HAVE TO BE intrinsically incoherent; therefore not all paradoxes are illogical.
may the peace of Christ be with you.

Marc Schindler

April 13th 2003, 08:28 PM

You're right, and thanks for expanding on my point. As per my original comments, I'm trying to keep my posts to a bare minimum; it was the appearance that I was concerned with at the time. I'm well aware that Orthodox, Catholics and liberal Protestants have self-consistent beliefs in trinitarianism; conservative Protestants -- so-called Inerrantists or Biblicists -- do not, in my opinion. About which more in days to come.

phantaz sunlyk

April 13th 2003, 10:41 PM

**7** say hey marc, my respect for you has grown enormously. you say you like to have a feel for the people you argue with--i've written a few articles on the Trinity at Tekton. if you feel like taking on any of them, feel free, and we can discuss when i get back.
thank you so much for your last post.
may the peace of Christ be with you.

Marc Schindler

April 14th 2003, 10:56 AM

Do you have specific URLs by any chance?

BTW, I'm assuming you're of an eastern tradition, given your .sig file quote. Is that correct?

Please, just don't expect long erudite posts (or even long posts) from me just yet. I have a few ironies in the fire, and have to let my branding iron here warm up a bit :brow:

Bill the Cat

April 15th 2003, 02:13 AM

Yesterday @ 12:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65192#post65192)
Kevin W. Graham:

== Well that's fancy. Once again, the Fee paraphrase applies.

No it doesn't. I'm not using one single scholarly citation to prove a point. As in the Jn 4:24 issues, I provided about a half-dozen. None of whom are LDS.

OK. But all i was saying is that in almost every verse, there is at least one scholar who disagrees with the majority interpretation.

== And made some statements in the first person that only the Most High could make

Not true. The Angel of Yahweh spoke as the Most High in first person. The Most High spoke through Him and for this reason He was His Word in the most literal sense.

The Angel of Yahweh was God as a theophany. The one who is called the angel of the Lord in one place is otherwise called the Lord or God in the immediate context (Gen_16:7, Gen_16:13; Gen_22:11-12; Gen_31:11, Gen_31:13; Gen_48:15-16; Exo_3:2-15; Exo_23:20-23; with Exo_33:14-15). To say that this is so because God is within the Angel means that we can also be called God now because He lives within us as well.

== The Angel was the visible theophany of God. No one has ever seen "the one true God" in His fullest form, only veiled in theophanies.

You'll have to read my review on this.

I look forward to it. :thumb:

== It was blasphemy if He were not God.

Not true. The Angel of Yahweh in teh OT was called God also. Again, this all fits into the oldest Jewish tradition.

And I argued above that it actually WAS God in a theophany.

l, why could believing Greeks not receive revelation the same way you claim that the LDS do?

They could have. the thing is, they never made such claims. Their truth came about from head-banging in council meetings.

I think Phantaz answered that already, but I want to interject a small tidbit. You make it sound like everyone came in with a small tidbit of the final product and amalgamated their ideas. I disagree with that idea. It was not like Congress today where compromise and ammendments are tacked on the ends of the final product.

== How do you know that God Himself did not reveal this idea to them? You don't. To claim exclusive revelation is elitist. I sure don't.

Again, if the church fathers said they all sat down and prayed with the scriptures and came to the same conclusion, then I would probably be convinced. But what they did was far from it. They idolized the emperor at his beckoning egotism, and offered the scriptures as a sacrifice to the Gods of philosophy. To argue that they were receiving revelation, at this point would be ad hoc.

You mean the council did not pray for Divine guidance before they started? And like I said, the Emperor's role was quite explained by Phantaz, and I'm sure that he would be glad to reiterate that bit again.

== Not without teaching, or else Jesus would have just told the Disciples to open a printing shop and do a mass mailer.

Then you just undermined the spirit of Protestantism my friend. All they need is scripture. If I've heard it once, I've heard it a thousand times.

1. That's kind of a generalization. The ministers I've had the privilege (sp?) of studying and serving under have all held the same belief. THe most dangerous thing in the world is a new Christian with a bible and no teacher.
2. Sola Scriptura may be Protestant in nature, but to say all someone needs is scripture is a wrong definition. To get past the basics of the Faith, we need teachers. Heb 6:1 Paul talks about the elementary TEACHINGS about Christ. Who taught if sola scriptura meant that teachers were not needed?

== Once again, who today can sit in a room and read King James English. Certainly not the construction worker, unless this is another one of those Joe Millionaire things.

My point was that the Trinity would not be developed or understood from the scriptures alone. Not without the Greek influence that pervaded during its conception.

Maybe, maybe not. But neither would plurality of Gods. Someone just sitting down with the Scriptures reading would probably take the first commandment to heart, especially since Jesus reiterated it.

== The fact that God can walk on water was an illogical paradox too.

Not it isn't. He made the laws of nature. He can manipulate them. Besides, this as nothing to do with God's ontological nature. It doesn't logically follow that if He can perform paradoxical actions, then so must be His nature.

Wow, you started to sound like me for a second. For you to say that God made the laws of nature and for Him to be able to manipulate gravity and buoyancy, he could also manipulate thermodynamics. He could create matter from nothing (ex nihlo) even though thermodynamics says this is impossible. Phantaz has an open challenge for you, but I know you are busy.

== He chose to reveal Himself in this way.

He never revealed Himself as a paradox.

Sure he did. Back and forth.. Tennis anyone?

== As far as adopting the trinity in it's entirity, I am undecided until I read the entire Athanasian Creed. I do think that to believe in Jesus, you must know who He is, otherwise, anyone can claim Him, even the Muslims.

Well I am hoping to learn exactly what the Trinity is. Quite frankly I am at the point of giving up and hoping phantaz sunlyk can help me out.

Well, I don't really have a great grasp on the wisdom literature, but I understand the trin by way of God's omnipresence. God is everywhere and the God that is beside me is the same as the God that is beside you.Now, the God beside me may choose th show as a pillar of fire and the God beside you may show as a cloud, but they are still the same God and still one entity. That may sound Greek in origin, but that doesn't make it completely wrong.

== Then I guess you disagree with Gordon Fee. And He has studied the Scriptures longer than both of us have been alive combined.

Come on dewd. I can name two dozen scholars who say the exact opposite, and I'm sure a handful of them are smarter than Fee. It is entirely irresponsible for any serious scholar to say the Trinity is "clear" in the Bible. If nothing else, the historical facts contradict this claim, for if it were indeed so clear, then there would be no need for centuries of philosophical/theological development on the issue. A fact that is virtually indisputable today.

Well to say crystal clear may be a stretch, but it is entirely logical to deduce the Trin. Athanasius didn't just come up with this one out of the blue.
Fee says "although it is never worked out at the level of imminant, or doxological, trinitarianism."
But He also says " That Paul's understanding of God was functionally Trinitarian and the distinction between Father, Son, and Spirit were presuppositional for him." Footnoted See the section entitled "what about the Trinity?" by David Ford in Frances Young and David Ford, Meaning pp.255-60

Paul's interest was soteriology anyway, noy the Nature of God, so his references to the triune nature of God, as seen in prayers for the Church of Corinth appear to be thoroughly presuppositional, not as something Paul argues for, but as the assumed, experienced reality of Christian life.

== Also, why are you getting that tone? It seems like the niceties I have enjoyed thus far are eroding. Is that true?

No way man. Perish the thought! I made that post at 4am, which was probably a mistake. Sorry if I came off a bit brash.

I can relate. I work all night long. Thanks and sorry for the misunderstanding.

== It seems like LDS rely strictly on revelation, which can be changed, and then scripture if it suits.

Not really changed, but simply updated or expounded upon. Scripture is never changed.

Well you say tomata, I say tomato. Some of the revelations given seem to contradict previous revelations by past authorities.

== As opposed to citing a 2000 year old book?

Sorry, but it is hard to take any forum seriously when it constantly uses John Gill as an authority. I think this is the fifth time I've seen this source being used. For me it reveals just how destitute a position can appear.

Gill was very knowledgable in Greek and is still considered a very good source for knowledge on the scriptures. Your disagreeing with his commentaries does not eliminate them from being correct or useful.

== And you ignored the "all things" in verse 18

No I didn't. I'm simply challenging your understanding of what all things encompasses. If it includes all things in existence, including demons and Satan, then these must be included in "all things" in vs 20-22. You can't have it both ways.

But you want it both ways.

Yours:
V 16 Created All things means only some things, not spirit children
V 18 Preeminence All things means all things
V20 Reconciled All things means some things, but not demons

Mine:
V16 Created All things means all things
V 18 Preeminence All things mean all things
V20 Reconciled in Heaven and on Earth all things means all things listed.

Notice the diference. All things is consistent across the 3 verses for my belief, but yours differs based on your theological belief.

== Will He be preiminent over all things (v18) or not?

Sure He will. But I subscribe to the interpretation that He is the firstborn of every creature. Meaning, he was the first creature of heavenly Father, who in turn created everything else under His guidance. His Wisdom. His creative power. Preeminence is included here, but I do not believe it is the sole meaning behind firstborn. If it were, then there would be no reason to reemphasize preeminence in the following verses. It would be redundant. Rev 3:14 tells us that He was the beginning of God's creation, which reinforces this understanding. But anyway, we'll have to agree to disagree.

OK. We'll let this one slide too.

== Hey, it works for Jeff Lindsey quoting JFB, so why can't I?

JFB?

Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. I don't have access to his site from work. Darn those firewalls!! But I read one of his articles where he quotes from them. They did theirs in 1871

== In a way. I agree that there were those the OT refers to as elohim, but whether they actually exist or not is subjective.

It wasn't subjective for the Jews, and most scholars will testify to this. As far as this issue goes with scholarship, I'll go to the mat with anyone anyday. Even yoru own Evangelical faithful are beginning to turn on this issue. Why? Because the case is too strong to ignore.

Funny, my best friend's dad doesn't know what you are talking about. He converses with the likes of Moo and Fee on a regular basis. To assume that just because the ancient Jews worshipped these "deities" they are actually existent entities is incorrect. Elijah showed the fact that Ba'al didn't exist and made serious fun of those prophets who were worshipping him.

== To say that the council was comprised of Ba'al or Molech, or Ashtoreth, or any other "territorial" deities worshipped as God is presumrtuous and without Biblical support.

You're misinformed, and way out of touch with scholarship on this issue. But again, this is not at all surprising since such issues are hardly entertaining for Evangelicals. So I can't blame you. But if you want to learn more about this topic, perhaps THE authority on this issue would be Catholic Scholar Mark Smith. http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/MSmith_BiblicalMonotheism.htm

Well an excerpt from Smith's work describes a less than sure approach. As a result, it is generally not possible to recover how premonarchic Israel fashioned its own narrative about its religious identity (reflected in the early archaeological and iconographic evidence).68 Instead, scholars combine a number of approaches into their syntheses: they rely heavily on the small number of early texts, they add interpretations drawn from the contemporary archaeological or iconographic sources, and they work from later texts that seem (at least, to them) to reflect the earlier situation (Zevit's work is a good example of this situation). The work remains highly inferential. This shortcoming may be overcome in the future by new discoveries, more extensive examinations of the data and their incorporation into more theoretically sophisticated frameworks.

Also of note, I don't think that anyone will argue that the Israelites were worshipping other deities from Moses to well after the exile. The text is littered with God telling them not to do that. But to take archaeological indications of polytheism (decried by God) and say that these beings were real is stretching the texts.

== Talmage thought that Elohim was H.F.'s name, not just a title word meaning god. So what's changed?

Nothing has changed. It is HF's name in LDS doctrine, but we also recognize that Elohim means God in plural form. It is a title and a proper name also. Just as Adam in Hebrew means "man" and it was also a proper name for the first man. We don't believe that every instance of elohim in the Bible is referring to HF by name, and this is evident in Talmage's message if you had access to the entire context. He said just prior that,

Well that's a relief. And the archaeological evidence you cite shows that the ancients didn't call him elohim either, but El.
...as well as the process leading to his assimilation into the highland pantheon, headed by El along with his consort, Asherah

== Pass. I've gotten the jist of the confusion already and really don't need more. Overkill, ya know.

Oh come on. It isn't nearly as confusing as the Trinity, and I'm willing to give THAT a try. Meet me half way here.

OK, gimme a whirl!!

== Notice the DUAL meaning. The first is how we deal with God, the second is how we deal with others or they deal with us.

By dual meaning I'm speaking of two distinct meanings that differ. Like your insistence that olam means both a)long time without a defined limit and then b)one with a defined limit (infinity). It has to be either or in this case, but not with the term worship. All you have done is provide one meaning which is expressed in different ways. It still remains a fact that worship means worship It doesn't matter if it is doen via prayer, kneeling or whatever. You're still giving reverence, paying tribute to something other than the One True God. You said only one God is to be worshipped in a biblical sense yet the Bible says WE will be worshipped. You' can't reconcile this by trying to apply a different type of worship. It is worship nonetheless, and as such, contradicts the claim that we cannot be worshipped.

But you said "Good grief, worship means to bow down, adore, pray to, to WORSHIP."

Like I said. proskuneō simply is a body position. It does not mean they will be praying to us. That's the whole crux. We will not be prayed to!!

== We are bowed down to because we are in a higher position related to God than those that are of Satan who will be bowing to us.

Right. We are to be worshipped. Contrary to what you said.

Nope, body position versus prayer to.

== Thanks for the info. It was the first time I had ever heard of them and I figured I'd get your take on the situation. I'd still like you to address him more directly and let me know how it turns out.

Frankly, I don't think he is worth the time. I actually overestimated the impact the Strangites had had. As it turns out their numbers are down to the hundreds and are dwindling to nonexistence. They have no case. Non-LDS experts have analyzed this "letter" and have classified it as a forgery. And an obvious one at that. This guy is trying to reinvent the wheel with a block of dry mud.

Oh, OK. THat's why I asked the question. To know more.

== Well, I think you may have jumped to judgement too fast.

Perhaps, but I would expect anyone who claims to be a "professional historian," to fork up the credentials. It would be one thing if he offered no information on his credentials at all, but he seems to have gone out of his way to do so, and so far the list is not impressive. No degree at all, let alone a doctorate in History. Heck I spent weeks doing research at Ga Tech, but you won't see me using that as a credential. Might as well throw in your High School like "Dr" Walter martin did.

Well, like I said, a quick email would be all it would take.

== I could have written you off immediately as a Mormon, but I chose to listen.

If I had professed to be an expert in a field as disciplined as History, then I would expect you to write me off.

point taken.

== Why not offer the same courtesy before you pass such a harsh judgement.

Because I've seen his argument and it is borderline ludicrous. I at least read it first. You're coming from the perspective that what he says might be true, whereas I'm coming from a background where this issue has been considered dead and buried for decades. His entire argument rests on HIS analysis of JS writings as found in Deen Jesse's work (which I own BTW). Now in order for his analysis to carry any weight with me, he would first have to demonstrate an expertise in this field as well, and then prove why his opinion should outweigh that of many other experts. But he hasn't even been able to establish himself as a recognized authority at all. Collecting Mormon memorabilia makes him a collector and nothing more.

Once again, a quick email may fix this. I didn't assume it was true, but I had never seen this claim before and wanted some info from someone closer to the situation. Good luck at school.

Bill the Cat

April 15th 2003, 02:16 AM

04-13-2003 @ 04:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=65328#post65328)
Kevin W. Graham:

When I grow up, I want to be an anti-Mormon and sit outside LDS conferences and protest with big signs that say "Mormonism is worse than homosexuality." I'm bound to be in Jesus' favor then.

Talk about getting a life.

Well, I agree that if someone is using a sign that says that, they are wrong, but picketing is what the USA is all about. We are all free to assemble and voice our opinions. I don't see anyone in that picture with that sign, only ones decrying false teachers.

greyphilosophy

April 15th 2003, 03:07 AM

I think I may have seen some of those guys in Manti last year. I think that a lot of the missionaries at the conventions are not being very good representatives of Christ per 2 Tim 2:24, however I have met some "anti's" who actually have a great love for LDS, and truly present the gospel not only with their words, but also in their method. A friend of mine who was holding a sign outside the convention had someone walk up and tell him basically to shut up while he was talking to someone else who wanted to talk with him. My friend ignored the guy who told him to shut up and kept discussing with the other fellow. Then the guy who told him to shut up slapped him and ran off into the crowd. I wonder if that guy who slapped my friend feels like he earned favor with Christ... probably not.

Kevin W. Graham

April 15th 2003, 03:42 AM

== OK. But all i was saying is that in almost every verse, there is at least one scholar who disagrees with the majority interpretation.

Well yeah. that is a given. But I'm not going to be pinned in the corner as if I'm the guy relying on that "one" scholar. Tell me how many you need and I'll provide. My point is that this isn't just some Mormon innovation. These are issues that are argued by non-LDS scholars who do a good job making out point for us. In many cases, the scholars come from your side of the fence. You'll see some of this in my review.

== The Angel of Yahweh was God as a theophany. The one who is called the angel of the Lord in one place is otherwise called the Lord or God in the immediate context (Gen_16:7, Gen_16:13; Gen_22:11-12; Gen_31:11, Gen_31:13; Gen_48:15-16; Exo_3:2-15; Exo_23:20-23; with Exo_33:14-15).

If by theophany you mean manifestation, then I'm not sure where I'd disagree.

== To say that this is so because God is within the Angel means that we can also be called God now because He lives within us as well.

No, that isn't what I'm saying. He is a God by nature since that is exactly what the elohim were in Judaism. But he could also be called Yahweh in the first person because He spoke for Yahweh. HE was the messenger or angel sent as God's Word.

== I think Phantaz answered that already, but I want to interject a small tidbit. You make it sound like everyone came in with a small tidbit of the final product and amalgamated their ideas. I disagree with that idea. It was not like Congress today where compromise and ammendments are tacked on the ends of the final product.

I'll have to reread what he said. I read him saying, "unless it is assumed outright that the Church at that time was a group of people with wildly varying theologies, which is very much question begging." But this isn't question begging at all. Even Paul Owen admits that trying to pin a Church Father doctrine of deification is tough because they all meant different things. I think anyone who wants to assert that the CF's all agreed on their theology really has a hard case toa rgue. This is by far the most outrageous claim I've seen anyone make.

== You mean the council did not pray for Divine guidance before they started?

Have evidence that they did? I'd like to see it.

== And like I said, the Emperor's role was quite explained by Phantaz, and I'm sure that he would be glad to reiterate that bit again.

The emperor's role was not to declare doctrine, but his presence cannot be downplayed. He was the main attraction. The same men who signed the creed also declared him an angel of God, and upheld his argument that He actually served as Christ who saved us. He is the one who decided to use the term homoousia(same substance) to solve the problem. Who was going to say no when "no" meant being exiled?

== 1. That's kind of a generalization. The ministers I've had the privilege (sp?) of studying and serving under have all held the same belief. THe most dangerous thing in the world is a new Christian with a bible and no teacher.

I like your position. But this brings up another issue. Who gets to be the teacher? Like the LDS you seem to believe scripture without guidance is wortheless. The difference here is that we believe our guidance comes from priesthood holding authorities (similar to Catholicism) while your "teachers" are... who exactly? Can just any old Joe become a teacher? How do I know his interpretation of the Bible is better than the next guy's?

== 2. Sola Scriptura may be Protestant in nature, but to say all someone needs is scripture is a wrong definition. To get past the basics of the Faith, we need teachers. Heb 6:1 Paul talks about the elementary TEACHINGS about Christ. Who taught if sola scriptura meant that teachers were not needed?

I would argue that most Protestants do. But again I'm glad you see it differently. Sola scriptura means sola scriptura or else it wouldn't be sola scriptura.

== Maybe, maybe not. But neither would plurality of Gods. Someone just sitting down with the Scriptures reading would probably take the first commandment to heart, especially since Jesus reiterated it.

But most of them woudl probably pay attention to other scriptures as well. Thsoe that clearly refers to a plurality of gods. The Lord is One doesn't mean the Lord is alone. It means He is one. Now how He is one is a matter for interpretation.

== Wow, you started to sound like me for a second.

Nah, you were just always like me beforehand. :P

== Phantaz has an open challenge for you, but I know you are busy.

I've responded already. I appreciate his compliment - if he thinks I'm worthy of a debate over the philosophy of the Trinity- but I have much to learn on this. If teh challenge were over the biblical nature of the Trinity, that woudl be another matter. But the paradoxical nature of the Trinity is a matter of perception that cannot disproven via debate.

== Well, I don't really have a great grasp on the wisdom literature, but I understand the trin by way of God's omnipresence. God is everywhere and the God that is beside me is the same as the God that is beside you.Now, the God beside me may choose th show as a pillar of fire and the God beside you may show as a cloud, but they are still the same God and still one entity. That may sound Greek in origin, but that doesn't make it completely wrong.

It is Greek in origin. Hello Pantheism.

== Well to say crystal clear may be a stretch, but it is entirely logical to deduce the Trin.

That is the rumor, but so far nobody has shown this to be the case.

== Athanasius didn't just come up with this one out of the blue.

True. He came up with this out of theological necessity. If it weren't for Arius arguing against the divinity of Christ, Alexander never would have had to make such formulations which Athansius succeeded.

== Well you say tomata, I say tomato. Some of the revelations given seem to contradict previous revelations by past authorities.

Yeah, you mean like "eye for an eye" and then "turn the other cheek?" Apparently "updating" previous revelation is an entirely biblical concept. While they appear to be contradictions on the surface, in essence they're merely extensions.

== Gill was very knowledgable in Greek and is still considered a very good source for knowledge on the scriptures. Your disagreeing with his commentaries does not eliminate them from being correct or useful.

PLEASE don't take this the wrong way, but Gill is useful only if you have no access to a library and are confined to the internet in your research. Very much in the same way STRONGS is considered useful. Gill predates many discoveries in biblical studies, and for this reason his exegesis is often inadequate.

== V20 Reconciled in Heaven and on Earth all things means all things listed.

Huh? And just what exactly is "listed" in vs.20? All things should be completely reconciled back to Himself, "whether on earth or in heaven" just as vs.16 says He created all things "in heaven and on earth." Even more, vs. 16 says that these things were created form Him. Were Demons and Satan created form Him?

== All things is consistent across the 3 verses for my belief, but yours differs based on your theological belief.

Ha! You took the words right out of my mouth. All things means all things "listed" for you in vs 20. Why? In order for you to keep your interpretation of vs. 16 coherent. But I'd challenge you to find one single Bible commentary that says all things in vs 20 doesn't mean all things. I would be surprised if you can even find an "Evangelical" commentary that would say this.

== OK. We'll let this one slide too.

Let what slide? Show me one instance in the Bible where the "firstborn" of anything was not part of the group. Christ was a part of creation; hence, firstborn of creatures.

== Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. I don't have access to his site from work. Darn those firewalls!! But I read one of his articles where he quotes from them. They did theirs in 1871

I searched his site and couldn't find that reference. Oh well.

== Well an excerpt from Smith's work describes a less than sure approach.

Really? That isn't the impression I got. Especially after reading both of his books, "Origins of Biblical Monotheism" and "The Early History of God."

== Also of note, I don't think that anyone will argue that the Israelites were worshipping other deities from Moses to well after the exile. The text is littered with God telling them not to do that. But to take archaeological indications of polytheism (decried by God) and say that these beings were real is stretching the texts.

Nobody is saying that this proves their reality. They are saying that these Gods were real to the early Israelites.

== OK, gimme a whirl!!

Whats is your email?

== But you said "Good grief, worship means to bow down, adore, pray to, to WORSHIP."

Yeah, meaning any of the above, not necessarily all of them simultaneously.

== Like I said. proskuneō simply is a body position. It does not mean they will be praying to us. That's the whole crux. We will not be prayed to!!

Huh? It is the same "body position" that was used in reference to the worship of Christ more than 50 times in the NT. There is no other word used to specify a difference between worship of God and the worship of proskuneō that will pertain to exalted humans. If you want to argue that no other gods can be prayed to, then that is another argument entirely. But you said they would not and could not be worshipped. The Bible says otherwise.

"Right. We are to be worshipped. Contrary to what you said."

== Nope, body position versus prayer to.

LOL.... talk about bait and switch! You went from worship to body position and now prayer. The Greek tern does not mean "body position" as you so chose to confine it. It means to give a token of reverence, whether that be on your knees or whatever. You know, there is a good reason this is translated "worshipped" in the 60 times it is found in the NT, instead of knelt or bowed down to. It is far more than a body position.

== Well, I agree that if someone is using a sign that says that, they are wrong, but picketing is what the USA is all about. We are all free to assemble and voice our opinions. I don't see anyone in that picture with that sign, only ones decrying false teachers.

I had to edit it out to make the picture fit. This guy was off to the right with a sign that said in Yellow and Red, "Mormonism is worse than homosexualilty." I wonder if the pudgy guy is Kurt Van Gorden. Wonder what he will do with his million bucks he intends to win from the lawsuit against the Church. Buy a Dunkin Donuts chain?

Bill the Cat

April 17th 2003, 05:57 AM

== OK. But all I was saying is that in almost every verse, there is at least one scholar who disagrees with the majority interpretation.

Well yeah. that is a given. But I'm not going to be pinned in the corner as if I'm the guy relying on that "one" scholar. Tell me how many you need and I'll provide. My point is that this isn't just some Mormon innovation. These are issues that are argued by non-LDS scholars who do a good job making out point for us. In many cases, the scholars come from your side of the fence. You'll see some of this in my review.

Look forward to it!!

== The Angel of Yahweh was God as a theophany. The one who is called the angel of the Lord in one place is otherwise called the Lord or God in the immediate context (Gen_16:7, Gen_16:13; Gen_22:11-12; Gen_31:11, Gen_31:13; Gen_48:15-16; Exo_3:2-15; Exo_23:20-23; with Exo_33:14-15).

If by theophany you mean manifestation, then I'm not sure where I'd disagree.

I mean it’s a veiled appearance of the presence of the Almighty God.

== To say that this is so because God is within the Angel means that we can also be called God now because He lives within us as well.

No, that isn't what I'm saying. He is a God by nature since that is exactly what the elohim were in Judaism.

And I assert that it was not just A god but THE God

But he could also be called Yahweh in the first person because He spoke for Yahweh. HE was the messenger or angel sent as God's Word.

Not true. If that’s the case, then Joseph Smith and succeeding prophets could be called Yahweh too because they claimed to speak for God with the authority of God.

== You mean the council did not pray for Divine guidance before they started?

Have evidence that they did? I'd like to see it.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-29.htm#P7588_3145229

Chapter XI. Silence of the Council, After Some Words by the the Bishop Eusebius.
The bishop who occupied the chief place in the right division of the assembly26 then rose, and, addressing the emperor, delivered a concise speech, in a strain of thanksgiving to Almighty God on his behalf. When he had resumed his seat, silence ensued, and all regarded the emperor with fixed attention; on which he looked serenely round on the assembly with a cheerful aspect, and, having collected his thoughts, in a calm and gentle tone gave utterance to the following words.
Chapter XII. Constantine's Address to the Council Concerning Peace.27
"It was once my chief desire, dearest friends, to enjoy the spectacle of your united presence; and now that this desire is fulfilled, I feel myself bound to render thanks to God the universal King, because, in addition to all his other benefits, he has granted me a blessing higher than all the rest, in permitting me to see you not only all assembled together, but all united in a common harmony of sentiment. I pray therefore that no malignant adversary may henceforth interfere to mar our happy state; I pray that, now the impious hostility of the tyrants has been forever removed by the power of God our Saviour, that spirit who delights in evil may devise no other means for exposing the divine law to blasphemous calumny; for, in my judgment, intestine strife within the Church of God, is far more evil and dangerous than any kind of war or conflict; and these our differences appear to me more grievous than any outward trouble. Accordingly, when, by the will and with the co-operation of God, I had been victorious over my enemies, I thought that nothing more remained but to render thanks to him, and sympathize in the joy of those whom he had restored to freedom through my instrumentality; as soon as I heard that intelligence which I had least expected to receive, I mean the news of your dissension, I judged it to be of no secondary importance, but with the earnest desire that a remedy for this evil also might be found through my means, I immediately sent to require your presence. And now I rejoice in beholding your assembly; but I feel that my desires will be most completely fulfilled when I can see you all united in one judgment, and that common spirit of peace and concord prevailing amongst you all, which it becomes you, as consecrated to the service of God, to commend to others. Delay not, then, dear friends: delay not, ye ministers of God, and faithful servants of him who is our common Lord and Saviour: begin from this moment to discard the causes of that disunion which has existed among you, and remove the perplexities of controversy by embracing the principles of peace. For by such conduct you will at the same time be acting in a manner most pleasing to the supreme God, and you will confer an exceeding favor on me who am your fellow-servant."
It seems that God was invoked here before the bickering began in Chapter XIII.

== And like I said, the Emperor's role was quite explained by Phantaz, and I'm sure that he would be glad to reiterate that bit again.

The emperor's role was not to declare doctrine, but his presence cannot be downplayed. He was the main attraction. The same men who signed the creed also declared him an angel of God, and upheld his argument that He actually served as Christ who saved us. He is the one who decided to use the term homoousia(same substance) to solve the problem.
I think Eusebius was being a bit presumptuous.
From http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/nicea.htm

The Nicene Creed introduced the word "homoousious" or "consubstantial" meaning "of one substance." This word was not invented at the Council. Eusebius writes that some of the "most learned and distinguished of the ancient bishops had made use of consubstantial in treating of the divinity of the Father and the Son" (See document E in the Appendix, Baker). We do not have the sources that Eusebius must have had regarding the use of this word. Today, the only source is Origen who used the word in what seems the orthodox way (Johannes Quastren, "Patrology," Volume 2, p78). However, this phrase of Eusebius stands as a witness to the existence of wider use.
The bishops assembled at Nicea were careful to explain how they used the word, and what it meant. This is because it had been misused by Paul of Samosta. Regarding this unorthodox usage, St. Hilary and St. Basil say that it was said to be "unfit to describe the relation between the Father and the Son" at a council that met in Antioch (Ibid, p14). Apparently Paul of Samosta applied the word in a manner that implied division of nature, as several coins are from the same metal (Baker, p21).
It may be that the eloquence and glory of the Emperor had sway with some, however it should be remembered that he did eventually (years after the Council) support the Arian party. A few years after the Council of Nicea, Arius discovered a new way to interpret the word "homoousius" that agreed with his doctrines. He then asked to be readmitted to communion, but the Church refused. Arius then appealed to the Emperor. Emperor Constantine's favorite sister, Constantia, on her deathbed, implored Constantine to support Arius and he did so. A date was set for the forcing of the Church to readmit Arius, but while he was waiting for Constantine to arrive Arius stopped to relive himself and his bowels burst and he died. (See Arians of the 4th Century, Chapter III, Section II by John Henry Newman)
It is hard to imagine how a man who had supposedly argued with eloquence for the Nicene Creed and who supposedly formulated the key phrase and explained it would simply abandon it for a mere submission to the words and not the meaning of the Creed. It is also hard to imagine how the account of Eusebius can be reconciled to the Emperor's apparent failure to grasp the issue apparent in his letter. It is also hard to imagine how a man who had been such a humble servant of the Church at Nicea would attempt to force the Church to accept his decisions at this later date. It seems reasonable on these grounds to suppose that Eusebius of Caesarea wrote a less than accurate account designed to give credit and flattery to the emperor.
Who was going to say no when "no" meant being exiled?

Again from http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/nicea.htm

Constantine did play an important role at the Council. Eusebius of Caesarea reports that he played a key part in calming, convincing, and bringing all to agreement on contested points. The account of Eusebius fairly glows in regard to the Emperor, and he is portrayed as a key figure. It is nowhere suggested, however, that he was permitted to vote with the bishops nor that he used any form of force to obtain an outcome

== 1. That's kind of a generalization. The ministers I've had the privilege (sp?) of studying and serving under have all held the same belief. The most dangerous thing in the world is a new Christian with a bible and no teacher.

I like your position. But this brings up another issue. Who gets to be the teacher? Like the LDS you seem to believe scripture without guidance is worthless. The difference here is that we believe our guidance comes from priesthood holding authorities (similar to Catholicism) while your "teachers" are... who exactly? Can just any old Joe become a teacher? How do I know his interpretation of the Bible is better than the next guy's?

Funny you should ask that today. Our denomination has a school of ministry and a credentialing committee that interviews potential pastoral candidates. I just had my interview yesterday. A whole lot of theological questions are asked and answers compared to established denominational doctrine. They want to make sure we are not teaching things that do not line up with scripture.

== 2. Sola Scriptura may be Protestant in nature, but to say all someone needs is scripture is a wrong definition. To get past the basics of the Faith, we need teachers. Heb 6:1 Paul talks about the elementary TEACHINGS about Christ. Who taught if Sola Scriptura meant that teachers were not needed?

I would argue that most Protestants do. But again I'm glad you see it differently. Sola Scriptura means Sola Scriptura or else it wouldn't be Sola Scriptura.

From a Catholic site I read up on Sola Scriptura:
Thus private interpretation remains only a hypothetical, a dream for some idealized Christian world, but not something practiced in this one. Sola Scriptura ends up meaning that the average Christian has the right to interpret the Bible for himself, but a right only exercised in any kind of consistent manner by rare individuals.

One of the things that Luther and the others who ended up formulating Sola Scriptura were arguing against was a rigid Catholic interpretation of Scripture that no one could question. I agree with that part. I do believe that the average pew sitter has no desire to question teachers, and thus we end up with the likes of David Koresh.

== Maybe, maybe not. But neither would plurality of Gods. Someone just sitting down with the Scriptures reading would probably take the first commandment to heart, especially since Jesus reiterated it.

But most of them would probably pay attention to other scriptures as well. Those that clearly refers to a plurality of gods. The Lord is One doesn't mean the Lord is alone. It means He is one. Now how He is one is a matter for interpretation.

Maybe so, or maybe not. It’s hard to judge a hypothetical like this one. Agreed?

== Well, I don't really have a great grasp on the wisdom literature, but I understand the trin by way of God's omnipresence. God is everywhere and the God that is beside me is the same as the God that is beside you. Now, the God beside me may choose the show as a pillar of fire and the God beside you may show as a cloud, but they are still the same God and still one entity. That may sound Greek in origin, but that doesn't make it completely wrong.

It is Greek in origin. Hello Pantheism.

Sorry. No it isn’t.
Dictionary.com :yipee:
1. A doctrine identifying the Deity with the universe and its phenomena.
2. Belief in and worship of all gods.
I believe in neither. I just believe that God, when He manifests Himself (as a cloud or pillar of flame or Jesus) doesn’t abandon heaven. He is still there and He is here. For Him to be restricted to a body, He has to leave Heaven wide open when He leaves and visits Earth.

== Well to say crystal clear may be a stretch, but it is entirely logical to deduce the Trin.

That is the rumor, but so far nobody has shown this to be the case.

And I think scholars have amply proved it. Read the section entitled "What about the Trinity?" by David Ford in Frances Young and David Ford, Meaning and Truth in 2 Corinthians pp.255-60 or Arthur W. Wainwright’s The Trinity in the New Testament

== Athanasius didn't just come up with this one out of the blue.

True. He came up with this out of theological necessity. If it weren't for Arius arguing against the divinity of Christ, Alexander never would have had to make such formulations, which Athanasius succeeded.

So defines orthodoxy. Theological necessity as you called it.

== Well you say tomata, I say tomato. Some of the revelations given seem to contradict previous revelations by past authorities.

Yeah, you mean like "eye for an eye" and then "turn the other cheek?" Apparently "updating" previous revelation is an entirely biblical concept. While they appear to be contradictions on the surface, in essence they're merely extensions.

No not like that, I mean the blacks never holding the priesthood, and such. I also have a small problem with the “Word of Wisdom” Paul said not to forbid food or drink
Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]:

== V20 Reconciled in Heaven and on Earth all things means all things listed.

Huh? And just what exactly is "listed" in vs.20?

All things that are reconcilable. Heaven and Earth, but not the underworld.

All things should be completely reconciled back to Himself, "whether on earth or in heaven" just as vs.16 says He created all things "in heaven and on earth."

Note at creation there were none in the underworld. So it still holds true.

Even more, vs. 16 says that these things were created form Him. Were Demons and Satan created form Him?

Yes they were. Until they fell.
Joh 8:44 Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it

Ti 3:6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil.

These verses show Satan fell from a favorable position with God and was condemned

== All things is consistent across the 3 verses for my belief, but yours differs based on your theological belief.

Ha! You took the words right out of my mouth. All things means all things "listed" for you in vs 20. Why? In order for you to keep your interpretation of vs. 16 coherent. But I'd challenge you to find one single Bible commentary that says all things in vs 20 doesn't mean all things. I would be surprised if you can even find an "Evangelical" commentary that would say this.

You mean recent? I could pull out the oldies and show ya :brow:

== OK. We'll let this one slide too.

Let what slide? Show me one instance in the Bible where the "firstborn" of anything was not part of the group. Christ was a part of creation; hence, firstborn of creatures.

If Paul had literally meant "first to be born" when he wrote prototokos, at Col. 1:15, then his following statements make Christ Himself a part of those very things which Paul says Christ created and sustains, and before which He existed. It refers to preeminence and privilege, not order of creation.

== Also of note, I don't think that anyone will argue that the Israelites were worshipping other deities from Moses to well after the exile. The text is littered with God telling them not to do that. But to take archaeological indications of polytheism (decried by God) and say that these beings were real is stretching the texts.

Nobody is saying that this proves their reality. They are saying that these Gods were real to the early Israelites.

Well, Zeus was real to the early Greeks, but that doesn’t make him a real entity. Just like Ashtoreth or Ba’al.

== OK, gimme a whirl!!

Whats is your email?

PM me.

== But you said "Good grief, worship means to bow down, adore, pray to, to WORSHIP."

Yeah, meaning any of the above, not necessarily all of them simultaneously.

Oh, I thought you meant all of these things. So you agree that just because someone bows to us, they are not praying to us?

== Like I said. proskuneō simply is a body position. It does not mean they will be praying to us. That's the whole crux. We will not be prayed to!!

Huh? It is the same "body position" that was used in reference to the worship of Christ more than 50 times in the NT. There is no other word used to specify a difference between worship of God and the worship of proskuneō that will pertain to exalted humans. If you want to argue that no other gods can be prayed to, then that is another argument entirely. But you said they would not and could not be worshipped. The Bible says otherwise.

Like I said. Misunderstanding. I consider worship a prayer act. What I meant by body position was the reverent bow or face flop. I understand there’s an attitude behind it too, but I was referring to prayer to.

== Nope, body position versus prayer to.

LOL.... talk about bait and switch! You went from worship to body position and now prayer. The Greek tern does not mean "body position" as you so chose to confine it. It means to give a token of reverence, whether that be on your knees or whatever. You know, there is a good reason this is translated "worshipped" in the 60 times it is found in the NT, instead of knelt or bowed down to. It is far more than a body position.

I was referring to “praying to” type worship.

== Well, I agree that if someone is using a sign that says that, they are wrong, but picketing is what the USA is all about. We are all free to assemble and voice our opinions. I don't see anyone in that picture with that sign, only ones decrying false teachers.

I had to edit it out to make the picture fit. This guy was off to the right with a sign that said in Yellow and Red, "Mormonism is worse than homosexuality." I wonder if the pudgy guy is Kurt Van Gorden. Wonder what he will do with his million bucks he intends to win from the lawsuit against the Church. Buy a Dunkin Donuts chain?

What a lame-o. How does that represent Christ? I think that guy should have just gone home and got some rest and re-evaluated his life and his understanding of Christ.

bar Jonah

April 17th 2003, 10:59 AM

Today @ 03:57 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=70743#post70743)
Bill the Cat:

Funny you should ask that today. Our denomination has a school of ministry and a credentialing committee that interviews potential pastoral candidates. I just had my interview yesterday. A whole lot of theological questions are asked and answers compared to established denominational doctrine. They want to make sure we are not teaching things that do not line up with scripture.
I'm confused. Which is it? Do they compare your theological views with scripture? Or with "established denominational doctrine?" While those two might line up, one should never assume so. In what are they putting their faith? The traditions of men? Or in God's word? They can't have it both ways...

Marc Schindler

April 17th 2003, 02:33 PM

When most Christians say "...we are not teaching things that do not line up with scripture," they mean of course their own interpretations of scripture. This is so trite an observation on my part as to be almost a truism. At least when it comes to the "major religions," which I define as being the Orthodox religions (as there are more than one), the Roman Catholic church, and mainstream Protestants (Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, etc.). This is because it's been my experience that, as Bill the Cat shows in his discussion of the etymology of homoousis, the theologically educated of the "major" religions understand full well that the period which we LDS call the "great apostasy" was, from *their* point of view, a period of clarification, of refinement, of consensus-building. Although, being LDS, I don't see it that way, at least I can understand this pov and accept it as "valid" in a logical sense (that is, it is at least self-consistent, which is worth half the marks on the exam :brow: )

It helps that their apologetics work tends to be anti-anti, by and large, which is to say, they are truly defending their religions when they are attacked by the theological mosquitoes of the world (about which more presently). They are not attacking other religions from behind the flimsy façade of "apologetics". Not all LDS necessarily agree with me on this, but that's my view, fwiw.

Now to the people I *do* have a problem with when they use the term "Biblical," and that is the anti-intellectual ultra-conservative Protestants who have cut themselves off from their own histories. As an example of this I like to use the humourous anecdote about either Ma or Pa Ferguson (accounts vary; both were governors of Texas but at different times), who, during a debate in the Texas legislature about whether Hispanic children should be taught in Spanish or English, is alleged to have said, "If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for the schoolchildren of Texas." The funny part is that (s)he was dead serious.

A personal friend of mine, whose family we helped support for a number of years while they did missionary work in Irian Jaya (the Indonesian half of the island of New Guinea), has a ThD and last I heard was working with a Christian and Missionary Alliance congregation. We had our usual argument one day about whether "Mormons" were "Biblical" or not. Finally he said, "you know, Marc, there's another word you might want to consider, and that's 'Biblicist.'" He went on to explain that it meant something a bit different than Biblical. Now, I'm sure the following quote from Harold Bloom is not what my friend had in mind -- after all, he, like I, is a Canadian, and we like to think of ourselves as mild-mannered polite people, and if I were writing this, I wouldn't use the strong language Bloom does. So ignore the reference to a specific denomination -- that is not at all the point here. It's in the approach to the Bible where Biblicists differ and where, of all things, Latter-day Saints actually have more in common with Orthodox and Catholics and perhaps some of the High Protestants. Think of it as a kind of synonym to "Inerrancy," but inerrancy of the Chicago flavour rather than, say, the Lausanne or Manila flavour:

:joy: …The overwhelming urgency (and viciousness) of Southern Baptist Fundamentalism surpasses all other American instances of that errancy, and makes it shockingly similar to Iranian Shiite Fundamentalism or the worst excesses of the Neturei Karta in Israel...The mystical distrust of language in the Moderates, with its attendant repudiation of theology, is reduced by the Fundamentalists to a total devaluation of all language and all thought. Even as Fundamentalists insist upon the inerrancy of the Bible, they give up all actual reading of the Bible, since in fact its language is too remote and difficult for them to begin to understand. What is left is the Bible as physical object, limp and leather, a final icon or magical talisman. ...they are not writing about the text, in any sense whatsoever of text, or of that text. They write about their own dogmatic social, political, cultural, moral, and even economic convictions, and biblical texts simply are quoted, with frenetic abandon, whether or not they in any way illustrate or even approach the areas where the convictions centre. They are quoted also as though they interpreted themselves and were perfectly transparent in their meanings.

...Theology depends upon analogies, arguments, metaphors, all of which enforce the difference between words and the realities they represent. Fundamentalist Baptists never even seem to realize that the Bible is in the first place language [let alone not southwestern US English! -- MS]. :joy: [Bloom, the American Religion, 232]

(You can see I've just mastered v8 codes...!)

Now, to Bill the Cat's point about the etymology of certain words like homoousis. This is where the rubber meets the road, imo. Every major religious group (and a number of minor ones) always develop a unique jargon, almost a creole in some cases (literally so in syncretistic religions one finds in Latin American and the Philippines and Africa). Some LDS examples are "endowment" (which is not a reference to Pamela Anderson as it might be to the rest of you :lol:), temple, stake (when, as a young convert I first heard that we were gathering at the "stake centre" for a youth activity I skipped supper, assuming I was going to be fed there...alas, most of us learn things the hard way). I could go on and on.

The primitive Church also "co-opted" Koinê Greek. Now I have to think of some examples. I run across them all the time, but at the moment the only one that I can think of is Basileos, which has come to mean a church, but to secular contemporaries in the Graeco-Roman world it simply meant a government or administrative building. As one who, until having to take medical leave, regularly took the Queen's shilling, I worked in a "Basilica" downtown, although we didn't call it that (it did, however, have a 9-storey floor-to-ceiling atrium not unlike many a cathedral I've been in).

This process continued past the time of the events recorded in the NT (and indeed, started before Christ's day, in the "teeming pool of Siloam," as Donald Harman Akenson calls the late Second Temple period when many apocalyptic texts like the Genesis Apocryphon, Book of Jubilees and I Enoch were written). So the argument, to pick a different word, isn't about whether "hypostasis" is in the Bible. It is, although so far as I know it's occurence is a hapax legomenon [single, unique instance] and does not appear to have had the meaning it later developed during the Middle Platonic era of the ante-Nicene Apologists.

So it's useless to argue over when a word was first used...let me qualify that. It's not "useless" but its usefulness is overshadowed by how the word's meaning (be that denotative or connotative) changed during the time it was used. "Stasis" is certainly a word which evolved every bit as much as "stake" has from Boy Scout usage to LDS usage:brow:

But I promised I'd limit long posts for a while until I got to know everyone better. In any case, I've revealed some of my own prejudices: although I'm a believing and practising [for what?] Latter-day Saint, I respect the self-consistent great religions (even Sunni Islam and Rabbinic Judaism for that matter); I find the provincial little religions that originated out of isolation (in many senses of that term), inconsistent and while I respect their believers' sincerity, do not hold their tenets, such as they are, in much esteem. You've been warned.

In honour of self-consistency, I'll close with a quote from another fellow-Kraut (well, Australian, actually. No, wait, I mean Austrian*). Kurt Gödel, who burst the bubble of that evangelizing atheist, Bertrand Lard Russell (who spent most of his life trying to "formalize" logic in his "Principia Mathematica" only to have his bubble burst by one afternoon's casual doodling by Gödel) was, it is not well-known, a strong believer and once recast St. Anselm's ontological argument in his own predicate calculus (a language of logic; cf. Boolean Algebra). Gödel is alleged to have said "There are three kinds of mathematicians: those who can count, and those who can't." My own Boolean Algebra prof quoted this to us with a straight face once, adding that if we couldn't come up with at least 3 true, but contradictory statements (called antinomies in mathematics) before breakfast, we'd never make good mathematicians. That prof, btw, is now a sculptor. That means something, but I haven't figured out what yet (for some of his work, see: http://www.helasculpt.com/)

*"I keep forgetting, is it Upper or Lower Silesia we're giving away?" -- British PM David Lloyd George to an aide during the negotiations on the Treaty of Versailles

Bill the Cat

April 17th 2003, 11:01 PM

Today @ 10:59 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=70894#post70894)
RightIdea:

I'm confused. Which is it? Do they compare your theological views with scripture? Or with "established denominational doctrine?" While those two might line up, one should never assume so. In what are they putting their faith? The traditions of men? Or in God's word? They can't have it both ways...

Right Idea, allow me to humbly point you to our denom web page to answer your question. http://www.iphc.org/docs/theology/artfaith.html

these are the benchmarks of our faith and what we believe is scripture, so what is compared to our theological views.

Bill the Cat

April 17th 2003, 11:03 PM

Mark,

I am a layman here comparatively speaking and you just confused the mess out of me. :duh: :huh: I didn't really understand half of what you were saying, but I thank you for saying it! (Bill trying to sound like Bilbo Baggins :yipee:)

Marc Schindler

April 18th 2003, 01:03 AM

Well, I aim to please, not cornfuse, so please accept my apologies. My wife says my trick is that I say things with such an air of authority that everyone is impressed and never thinks to challenge me. It's a "talent" that came in handy when I was a civil servant :brow:

Bill the Cat

April 18th 2003, 01:18 AM

Since Kevin is occupied, can I ask you to explain Kolob to me? I heard a hymn called " if ere I could hie to Kolob" or something like that. Is Kolob Heaven?

Marc Schindler

April 18th 2003, 04:15 AM

The easiest answer is that Kolob is a metaphor. Again, since this isn't really core doctrine, as an old Institute of Religion instructor of mine used to say, "when we're not hampered by facts we're free to speculate all we want." Over the years various commentators have taken the concept literalistically, and in our anachronistic neo-hellenistic "scientific" way some LDS try even today to look at it the way, say, Velikovsky looked at the OT "miracles" (or more recently, creationists). I am not a creationist, and differ from my over-literalistic LDS brethren (and sistern) and do not believe Kolob is "an M-class planet in the delta quadrant," as Capt. Janeway might put it. :bow:

My own speculation is that it represents what I call a metaverse. My explanation will probably be seen as anachronistic by those two centuries from now, but it's my speculation and I'm not parting with it just yet! If you're familiar with some of the new theories, or not-quite-yet-theories related to the Big Bang, you may have heard of one which explains so-called Dark Matter as being energy (energy = matter) which enters our 3D universe from a parallel 3D universe. Think of our 3D universe as a flat piece of paper. To us it's infinite in distance, but to a 4D outside observer it's limited (this is a paradox, and I remember your correction on my definition here!). So think of a bunch of 3D "sheets" in a kind of cosmic filing cabinet, and they keep getting moved back and forth, as if the filing cabinet drawer is in constant motion. Thus they transfer a kind of kinetic energy between them. Right now we are the recipient of this energy and it manifests itself as dark matter.

LDS do not really believe in the "supernatural," technically speaking. We believe in the "metanatural." This isn't just semantics -- Joseph Smith famously said even spirit is matter, only a "refined" matter (or in Pauline language, an "incorruptible" matter). Smith also said the afterworld is all around us. As a mathematician I look at this, anachronistically or not, and say, aha! We are a 3D universe embedded in at least a 4D metaverse, a realm of which we are a subset.

So, to get back to your question, in my mind Kolob is a metaphor for this "incorruptible" realm, whatever it is. Hence the subjunctive mood of the title of that old hymn (sadly not sung so much anymore; too "weird" for many modern LDS, I guess): "if you could hie [move yourself; an old Scots English word, I believe] to Kolob." But you can't. Therefore you're stuck here, with a veil between you and God, and as per Hebrews 11:1, we have, with our free agency, the decision whether to believe or not.

I have a scientist friend, and like many scientists (and not just LDS; Kenneth Miller is a Catholic biochemist I admire greatly for his ability to accept evolution and yet still believe -- something we LDS also struggle with), he looked at all the evidence -- not just for the LDS Church -- but theism in general. You know, the usual stuff you can get off the sleaze zones like www.irr.org [I find it a bit ironic that "irr" is German for "err" but I digress] about Joseph Smith being a swindler, a drunkard, a lecher....all the stuff that we see in OT prophets and even the apostles for that matter. Not just that, but the scientific model is a very powerful and attractive epistemological model, and it has suckered many a self-righteous atheist into over-weening arrogance (I won't mention E. O. Wilson, Watson of DNA fame, or Richard Dawkins by name, of course....:ahem: ) In the end, in the deep dark night of the soul, we are all left with a simple question: do we believe, or don't we? There's really no "evidence" in the reducible sense one way or the other. My friend decided to believe. I wake up every day and decide to believe. It is a gift of grace, to put it another way, and I am at a loss to explain why some people choose not to believe, other than they have their own free will, too.

The scriptures are full of metaphors for the simple reason that deeply spiritual experiences and contacts with the transcendent are impossible to explain in our earthly language. I don't know what you think of near death experiences, but let's ignore whether they're "real" or not. One interesting thing I've observed from reading about them in Raymond Moody's books (most of the rest, including my fellow LDS Betty Eadie, are trash) is that when people come back they cannot even express what time meant to them when they were "away" or what space was like. Many find it profoundly frustrating to explain, and intriguingly, even their memory of what it felt like fades with time. Not memory of the experience as an event in their life, but memory of the actual experience itself, what it was like and that sort of thing.

Paul says in one of the Corinthian epistles that he knew a man who was caught up to the "third heaven." Okay, now let's forget about what the "third heaven" is for the moment, and look at how Paul qualified his report: "whether in the body or not I can not tell." As is common with NT writers, this is almost certainly a first-person reference (like the naked youth who flew the Romans come to arrest Christ in Mark -- that was probably Mark himself, else why mention such a trivial detail? They had their in-jokes then, too). And yet Paul can't explain what a vision is.

We've probably all had profound spiritual experiences. I have found that the most profound experiences have two things in common: 1) usually (there are exceptions) I have the feeling they are for me only and I am not even to try to explain them to others; the ultimate in irreducibility; and 2) even if I were to break what seems to be an inherent "commandment" not to tell others, I find words fail me.

The "Adamic language," which we supposedly spoke before the Tower of Babel is a metaphor for the kind of language we would need to explain transcendent phenomena in earthly (what LDS would call telestial) terms.

That's what Kolob is: where God dwells. I know that begs the question of where does God "really" dwell, but that's my point. The logic is circular unless one has access to a transcendent realm. So we can't "hie to Kolob" which is the point of the hymn if you actually read the words.

The usual disclaimer: remember that Mormons are like Jews -- put 2 of them together in a room and you have 3 opinions :smile:

Our core doctrine is remarkably compact, and we have no systematic theology as such, and thus it can be, I know, remarkably like nailing Jell-O to the wall to pin us down on anything.

We do it on purpose....

No, seriously, it's because we have a very different approach to epistemology, not being a "book-directed" people, but rather a "prophet-directed" people. Doctrine is what the prophet of the day says it is, to over-simplify.

Kevin G. old bud, what thinkest thou? Am I bound for a strait and narrow jacket? Or have I been tying myself up in 11+1D theological string theory?

Bill, what thinkest thou? Is this more than you really wanted to know? :tongue:

Kevin W. Graham

April 18th 2003, 04:32 AM

== Kevin G. old bud, what thinkest thou?

Heck, I always thought Battlestar Galactica said it best

:smile:

Hey Bill, did you know the show Battlestar Galactica was produced by an LDS member. The goal of every episode was to reach planet "Kobol." I got such a kick out of this when I found out. I loved that show as a kid, before I was LDS.

Marc Schindler

April 18th 2003, 04:52 AM

Trust Kevin to trump my "Voyager" reference with a "Battlestar Galactica" reference :brow:

Bill the Cat

April 18th 2003, 04:58 AM

Kevin,
Actually, yes I knew that. I also know several businesses that are owned by LDS and many stars, authors, etc are LDS. Doesn't stop me from reading/watching/liking them.

Mark,
Wow. That's metaphysics to the extreme. I knew some of that stuff, but some other seems like philosophizing beyond my pea brain. :thumb:

Do you agree that some LDS think of Kolob as an actual physical place/destination? The PGP in Abraham 3:2-3 seems to say that Kolob is a place that is physically near a star.

Bill the Cat

April 18th 2003, 05:06 AM

Our core doctrine is remarkably compact, and we have no systematic theology as such, and thus it can be, I know, remarkably like nailing Jell-O to the wall to pin us down on anything.

We do it on purpose....

No, seriously, it's because we have a very different approach to epistemology, not being a "book-directed" people, but rather a "prophet-directed" people. Doctrine is what the prophet of the day says it is, to over-simplify.

So contradictions don't matter. If a prophet revealed something that directly went against the standard works, it would be OK?

Marc Schindler

April 18th 2003, 05:18 AM

As I mentioned in my post, yes, there are LDS who believe in what I consider to be an over-literalistic approach. They tend to argue "where" it is -- is it in the centre of the Galaxy? Moab, Utah? To me they miss the entire point, and "commit a 'Velikovskiism'".

Your verstage may vary*

If you're unfamiliar with Velikovsky (and if your image on the forum is any indication of your age, you're probably not old enough to remember works of his like "Worlds in Collision"). Velikovsky was, of all things, a secular Jew, but tried to explain things like the parting of the Red Sea by a volcanic eruption on Crete, or maybe a tornado, or maybe Jedi Knights for all I can remember. For some criticism of Velikovsky's approach, and something more useful in general terms in any case, I'd recommend the following, by the late Northrop Frye, kind of a hero of mine, who was a United Church of Canada** minister who taught at Victoria College, U of Toronto. Vic College is among other things one of the main seminaries in Canada for the UCC. Frye is actually best known for bringing William Blake back out of obscurity. He was a professor of English, specializing in the English "mystic" poets like Blake. But he did write two interesting books on the Bible as literature. Here's his reference to Velikovsky:
http://www.members.shaw.ca/kschindler/frye_1.htm

*in-joke. On one list I was on we had a poster who was fond of saying YMMV (your mileage may vary). As a Canuckistani, miles are, of course, a foreign unit, so I decided to use, tongue-in-cheek, the pre-Revolution unit of length common in the Russian Empire. My paternal ancestors are Germans from Russia/Ukraine/Pland. But don't mind me; I also refer to Fahrenheit as "Foreign Heat".

And you're right about Abraham 3:2-3, but the problem is in defining what "near" means. Is that physical distance such as we understand the term ("Captain, the Borg cube is 400 000 km and closing fast!") or does it mean near in some other way we just can't understand as of yet?

In an odd sort of way I suppose it is akin to apocalyptic writings such as I Enoch, where, presaging Dante by centuries, he is given a guided tour of hell and various "heavens" (I think, iirc, the writer posits 7; in fact you can kind of date apocalyptic writings by how many heavens they refer to -- with time, like a fish story, the number went up. I Enoch is genuinely Second Temple, sowhile the Jews rejected it at the Council of Jamniah as being canonical, there is always that intriguing little reference in Jude to it. But we have no way of knowing whether Jude's "Book of Enoch" is what we today call I Enoch (a bit of a misnomer; there are 3 books of "Enoch" in the Charlesworth edition, the most authoritative and modern translation of the OT pseudepigrapa, but I Enoch, which has come to us in Ge'ez, the liturgical language of the Ethiopian Copts, is the most complete and textually the least problematic. II Enoch is in Hebrew and III Enoch is in Slavonic, of all things.

**in Canada and Australia, the Methodists, Congregationalists, and part of the Presbyterians amalgamated into the United Church.

Bill the Cat

April 18th 2003, 05:24 AM

You don't think like most LDS i've encountered.:thumb:

P.S. How old do you think I look?

Marc Schindler

April 18th 2003, 02:41 PM

How old do I think you look? Maaaaaaybe old enough to remember Velikovsky, but definitely not old enough to remember Enoch.

To say that I don't think like most LDS you've met is probably true (and I mean this in a value-neutral term; I'm not trying to come across as some kind of theological genius). But we don't have a professional clergy as such, so an "LDS theologian" is kind of an oxymoron (oxymormon?)

But I think that for every time I've corrected a fellow Latter-day Saints misconceptions about what trinitarianism actually is, I've corrected 10 Catholics for not understanding their own doctrine (most also believe in the caricature of 3-in-1, what I call the "Certs" model. You know, "Certs, it's three mints, three mints, three mints in one!" :smile: )

Everyone, not just LDS, tend to blur the lines between formal doctrine and folk doctrine, cultural beliefs and the like. For instance, if you attend an LDS service, you will see all three members of the bishopric (the volunteer clergy who head a "ward," or congregation) in white shirts. And very, very rarely with any facial hair). You will look in vain in the Doctrine & Covenants for this "law." It's, well, maybe more like a municipal by-law :brow:

Many approaches to intellectual matters cross denominational boundaries. We are known as being very socially conservative, but I know LDS libertarians (or "libertines" as an old English friend used to tease me -- I ran for Parliament once as a Libertarian) and I even know a rather famous member (although she's passed away now) with a very remarkable story that includes 2 PhDs, a teaching position in a Catholic seminary in Bavaria, etc., who converted to Mormonism in old age. She was an activist for the SPD, which is like the Democrats in the US (Gerhard Schröder and Willy Brandt are/were both SPDs).

Another example is how to approach science. I follow a "dual epistemology" approach which means science and religion aren't so much to be reconciled as they are to live separate, parallel existences, not so much competing to answer the same questions as striving to ask different questions, which makes all the difference in the world. But I have many arguments with fellow LDS on whether God could have used evolution (the so-called theistic evolution position). But I have many LDS friends who think as I do, too.

If I ever had a chance to meet, say, Hans Küng, I'd probably remark, "Wow, I've never met a Catholic like you before!" (not that I'm on his level; I'm just making a point that sometimes what stands out contradicts the label we're comfortable with).

The vast majority of LDS are like anyone else: striving to make a living, raise a family and stay out of trouble:angel:

Marc Schindler

April 18th 2003, 02:51 PM

Bill, a postscript on "Kolob." I posted a copy of my answer on to an LDS scripture discussion list, and an Australian acquaintance told me he can remember when he was a teenager, some members telling him Kolob was the star Betelgeuse (pronounced "beetle-juice"), the brightest star in Orion. Now this is very funny. "Betelgeuse" is, like many of the names of our stars, an anglicized form of an Arabic name. My Arabic is next to non-existent, so I'm not sure if I'm transliterating this properly, but iirc, its actual Arabic name is something like "Beit al-jueh'sa" but whatever it is, it means literally "house of the Giant's arm," which is a circumlocution for "the Giant's armpit."

That would make us all fleas in God's armpit. Ah well, at least it's not a camel's "omphalus" (belly button).

Marc Schindler

April 18th 2003, 05:35 PM

Found out some more on Kolob, etymologically speaking, from responses to the post I made on Scripture-L (a copy of my original response to Bill):

[another poster]
>I personally think it relates to the Hebrew root *KLB
>"dog," and refers to Sirius, Alpha Canis Majoris.
>This makes excellent sense, because:

>1. Sirius is the brightest star in the night sky
>(from the perspective of earth).

>2. Sirius was anciently known as the "dog" star.
>(And Canis Major is the "Bigger Dog").

>3. Sirius was immensely important in Egyptian
>astronomy, because the Nile began to rise at its
>heliacal rising. So the year was keyed off of Sirius.

Marc Schindler:
Hence, incidentally, our saying today, "the dog days." (I'm serious). "Sirius" is a latinized form of arabic al-Shirah, meaning "the shining one." [which may have been borrowed from Persian Sheraz] Burnhams speculates that the word may be cognate with Sanskrit Suryat, the Sun God.

And qalb, the Arabic, means, as you say, "heart," or "centre," but this should tell us it may not be a particular, specific object per se (the term centre can have all kinds of meanings; the centre of the earth, the heart of the Okanagan Valley, the heart of the Gospel, etc). It has such a wide spectrum of connotations it is geographically useless on its own, which is part of my point. And to reinforce that point, it's not just one star that has *qlb in it, but several, although the modern names are anything but obviously related. Antares is from the Greek anti Arês, or "against Mars", which could mean either opposite Mars, or a rival to Mars. ("Cairo" in Arabic is a term meaning "Mars," coincidentally). In Latin it's Cor Scorpionis, the Heart of the Scorpion (its official name is alpha scorpionis), and in Arabic, "heart of the scorpion" is Qalb al-'Akrab.

Another one is Regulus (Latin for "little king"), which is alpha leonis, sometimes called Cor Leonis, the Heart of the Lion. Again, in Arabic it's known either as "the royal being" (Malikiyy), but this is a bit of metonymy. In Arabic literature, the city of Baghdad is known as the "heart" (as in a human heart; not that the word means that, just that it's a poetic name for Baghdad, probably because of the early rise of the Baghdad Caliphate). Here's a poem by a modern Arab singer, M. R. Bawa Muhaiaddeen:

The true ruler of Baghdad is not a person but rather the state of purity, which exists within each person’s heart. This purity is known as Muhaiyaddeen. The name Muhaiyaddeen refers to the Treasure that existed from the beginning, the ancient treasure that was and always will be with Allah (God). Muhaiyaddeen is also known as the Qutb, the one who reveals the wisdom that lies buried under illusion, revives the life of that wisdom, and imparts it to others. It is to that wisdom of purity that Allah gave the name Muhaiyaddeen.

Sound familiar?

Finally, Canopus, or alpha carinae. The constellation is popularly known as Argo, and is a very large, wandering constellation with several score visible stars in it. This is the "great star of the south" which is invisible to most northern hemisphere observers, but would have been visible to most in the Ancient Near East. It is the brightest star in the southern hemisphere, and second only to Sirius in magnitude. "Canopus" was a Ptolemaic Egyptian city. However, this was a hellenized form of the Coptic, or ancient Egyptian, Kahi Nub, a town near Alexandria famous for its ancient temple to Serapis (and the site of Nelson's naval defeat of Napoleon, incidentally). Here's an excerpt from an Australian astronomy site about the tradition behind the name: "An Egyptian priestly poet wrote of it as Karhana, "the star Which pours his light in a glance of fire, When he disperses the morning dew"; and this still was seen a millennium later in the Kabarnit. Another tradition claims that Canopus was the pilot of Osirius. He is also said to have steered the Argo. The Arabs knew Canopus as, Suhail, or Suhel, the "Plain". This word also was a personal title in Arabia, the symbol of what is brilliant, glorious, and beautiful, and applied to a handsome person. Among the Persians Suhail is a synonym of wisdom, seen in the well-known Al Anwar i Suhaili, the Lights of Canopus and referred to wise thought, the brilliance of the mind...

Suhel ponderosus, Sihil ponderosa, a translation of Al Suhail al Wazn, Subhel; Arabs' Al Suhail al Yamaniyyah, the "Suhail of the South", [perhaps an allusion to the old story, that Suhail (this star, Canopus), was formerly located near Orion's stars, (which in this story was the feminine Al Jauzah), Suhail had to flee to the south after his marriage to her, where he still remains. Others said that Suhail only went a-wooing of Al Jauzah, who not only refused him, but very unceremoniously kicked him to the southern heavens.] Canobus; or Kanupns as an Arabian adaptation of the Greek Canopus."

So again one can see that the metonymy of the name is the important thing and transcends the literal geographical sense of the word. It reminds me of the ancient usa