Announcement

Collapse

LDS - Mormonism Guidelines

Theists only.

Look! It's a bird, no it's a plane, no it's a bicycle built for two!

This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to the LDS - Mormons. This forum is generally for theists only, and is generaly not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theists may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.

Due to the sensitive nature of the LDS Temple Ceremonies to our LDS posters, we do not allow posting exact text of the temple rituals, articles describing older versions of the ceremony, or links that provide the same information. However discussion of generalities of the ceremony are not off limits. If in doubt, PM the area mod or an Admin


Non-theists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Is Kolob a star or a planet?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    7UP: So, you believe that God can be a man with supernatural powers right?

    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    I believe that Jesus was God incarnate.
    You are dodging the question. Did Jesus Christ, being a man, have supernatural powers?


    7UP: I assume everyone who believes in the Bible does.

    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Well, yeah, but you're mormonizing the Truth.
    I am pointing out your hypocrisy. Those on this thread want to criticize Mormons for believing that God is "a man with supernatural powers."

    Please answer:

    Do you believe that Jesus is God?

    Do you believe that Jesus is Man?

    Do you believe that Jesus has supernatural powers?


    7UP: One huge difference between you all and LDS is this. We believe that Colossians 2:9 is true. And you do not.

    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    You're wrong. You've tried this silly stunt before.
    You refuse to address the issue.


    7UP: If God is, by nature (as an essential characteristic), an omnipresent essence, then you cannot also believe that the FULNESS of Deity can dwell bodily within Jesus Christ.

    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    You don't know what I believe. But I'll tell you this -- I believe Joseph Smith was a fraud and the Book of Mormon is his work of fantasy.
    Dodging the question again, trying to deflect or change the topic.


    7UP: You have yourself another contradiction.

    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Nope. You are not being a friend of the truth.
    I am answering all of your queries, while you are avoiding truth.

    "if you were to see GOD 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." - Joseph Smith

    We are created in "the image and likeness of God." That is the truth. Do you know the meaning of "image"? If you stand in the light, and your shape casts a shadow in the same figure ... that is what your "image" is. It merely means "a sketch, or an outline" of it's physical form.

    If the ancient heathens (or even Israelites) saw an eagle, and they looked at its shape and then created a statue out of stone in that same form/shape, then they had just created an "image".

    Likewise, the word "likeness" usually speaks of a visual / physical form. For example: "king Ahaz sent to Urijah the priest the fashion/likeness of the altar, and the pattern of it, according to all the workmanship thereof." (1 Kings 16:10).

    What does the Hebrew mean when someone in the Bible said something had the "likeness of a man"? Do they mean that it sounded, acted, thought, smelled like a man? NO! It means that it looked like a man.

    The Jews and the Christians had to attempt to change the interpretation of Genesis 1:26 when trying to integrate into Roman society and philosophy. The early Christians and Jews held the correct belief, however, like the LDS, were being mocked and derided for believing what the Bible taught. Upon the death of the apostles, the Christians abandoned the truth in the apostasy.

    -7up

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by seven7up View Post
      7UP: So, you believe that God can be a man with supernatural powers right?
      I find you rather boring. You will do or say ANYTHING to believe Smith was a real prophet, and the Book of Mormon is true. You're wrong on both counts.

      You will play word games, use mormonized meanings, and come to really dumb "logical conclusions". Smith was a false prophet who deceived many. I really don't have time for this today.


      And, PLEASE, learn to use the quote function, OK?
      Last edited by Cow Poke; 05-14-2014, 07:25 AM.
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by seven7up View Post

        You are dodging the question. Did Jesus Christ, being a man, have supernatural powers?
        Did the Apostles have supernatural powers?


        I am pointing out your hypocrisy. Those on this thread want to criticize Mormons for believing that God is "a man with supernatural powers."
        No. We criticize you for claiming that God is an EXALTED man, and that he EARNED his powers from someone else.

        Please answer:

        Do you believe that Jesus is God?
        Yes. And has forever been God. He did not earn it or happen upon it.

        Do you believe that Jesus is Man?
        No. We believe He is "A" man, but that is not what makes Him God.

        Do you believe that Jesus has supernatural powers?
        Yes.


        7UP: One huge difference between you all and LDS is this. We believe that Colossians 2:9 is true. And you do not.



        You refuse to address the issue.
        Again, your ignorance of God's omnipresence is showing. Physical locations do not contain PARTS of God. I do not simply have a piece of the Holy Spirit indwelling me, nor does CP. It's not like a glass of water poured from a larger pitcher.


        7UP: If God is, by nature (as an essential characteristic), an omnipresent essence, then you cannot also believe that the FULNESS of Deity can dwell bodily within Jesus Christ.



        Dodging the question again, trying to deflect or change the topic.
        Too stupid to get it, I see...

        7UP: You have yourself another contradiction.



        I am answering all of your queries, while you are avoiding truth.
        And you have been thoroughly exposed and trounced in your ignorance of the most basic parts of trinitarian thought.

        "if you were to see GOD 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." - Joseph Smith

        We are created in "the image and likeness of God." That is the truth. Do you know the meaning of "image"? If you stand in the light, and your shape casts a shadow in the same figure ... that is what your "image" is. It merely means "a sketch, or an outline" of it's physical form.
        False. I've schooled you more than once on what 'tselem means, and it is not physical copies.

        Psalm 73:20 As a dream when one awaketh; so, O Lord, when thou awakest, thou shalt despise their image.

        Why would God despise their physical resemblance, especially if it looks just like His?

        If the ancient heathens (or even Israelites) saw an eagle, and they looked at its shape and then created a statue out of stone in that same form/shape, then they had just created an "image".
        Correct. But 'tselem referred to much more than just a physical likeness. It was an authority representation of a deity's power. The Ba'al 'tselem shows a man with a bull's head. Was there really a bull headed man walking around Canaan? The golden calf was said to be a representation of the god that brought the Jews out of captivity. Now, had they known that "man was made in the likeness and image of God", and those simply meant that God is a human like us, why was it so easy to have them worship a calf? Would they not say "That's not what God looks like! He looks like us!". Or perhaps they understood that a 'tselem was something physical that gave a focal point to worship the deity...

        Likewise, the word "likeness" usually speaks of a visual / physical form. For example: "king Ahaz sent to Urijah the priest the fashion/likeness of the altar, and the pattern of it, according to all the workmanship thereof." (1 Kings 16:10).

        What does the Hebrew mean when someone in the Bible said something had the "likeness of a man"? Do they mean that it sounded, acted, thought, smelled like a man? NO! It means that it looked like a man.
        Seth is said to be in Adam's "image and likeness". If both prior sons are gone (one dead, one exiled) then it makes sense to say this because it indicates Seth is vested with Adam's authority as his first-born. It is pointless as a comment on Seth looking like Adam. Gen. 9:6 gives a reason for deserved retribution: You have killed God's representative who has His authority. It makes no sense to suppose that capital punishment is warranted for killing someone because they LOOK like God. Murder is the crime here, but the real point of offense is not that you killed someone, but that you messed their body up? Sorry, but no. That's simply absurd.

        The Jews and the Christians had to attempt to change the interpretation of Genesis 1:26 when trying to integrate into Roman society and philosophy. The early Christians and Jews held the correct belief, however, like the LDS, were being mocked and derided for believing what the Bible taught. Upon the death of the apostles, the Christians abandoned the truth in the apostasy.
        Absolute nonsense. Every bit of it.
        That's what
        - She

        Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
        - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

        I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
        - Stephen R. Donaldson

        Comment


        • #64
          7UP: I am pointing out your hypocrisy. Those on this thread want to criticize Mormons for believing that God is "a man with supernatural powers."

          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
          We criticize you for claiming that God is an EXALTED man, and that he EARNED his powers from someone else.
          Power and authority was bestowed upon Jesus Christ. Who gave Christ power and authority? His Father.

          Jesus Christ is a man. He is also Deity/God. He is also EXALTED.

          Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name. (Phil 2:9)


          7UP: Do you believe that Jesus is God?

          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
          Yes. And has forever been God. He did not earn it or happen upon it.
          Does God need to have authority in order to be God? Show me from scripture that Jesus Christ was considered God before he was "begotten" of the Father? And I don't mean being "begotten" in mortality.

          The problem is that you will claim that Jesus is being "eternally begotten", which is a concept not taught in scripture.


          7UP: Do you believe that Jesus is Man?

          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
          No. We believe He is "A" man, but that is not what makes Him God.
          I agree that being a man is not what makes Jesus Deity. I never said that every man is Deity.


          7UP: Do you believe that Jesus has supernatural powers?

          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
          Yes.
          Therefore, in Christianity, you cannot deny the idea that the fulness of Deity/God can dwell within a man, who has supernatural powers. We all knew the answer, but it is nice to see it all spelled out.


          7UP: One huge difference between you all and LDS is this. We believe that Colossians 2:9 is true. And you do not.
          You refuse to address the issue.


          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
          Again, your ignorance of God's omnipresence is showing.
          Yes. I admit to be "ignorant" of an invented version of a false conception of God's supposed literal omnipresence, which contradicts scripture.


          7UP: If God is, by nature (as an essential characteristic), an omnipresent essence, then you cannot also believe that the FULNESS of Deity can dwell bodily within Jesus Christ.

          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
          Too stupid to get it, I see...
          Ad hominem. I see that this is going to be a trend here on this forum when people get caught in their contradictions. Try to deflect and change the subject, and attempt personal attacks.


          7UP: You have yourself another contradiction.

          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
          you have been thoroughly exposed and trounced in your ignorance of the most basic parts of trinitarian thought.
          The more that Trinitarians attempt to explain "trinitarian thought" , the more they expose themselves, but repeatedly contradicting previous statements.

          "if you were to see GOD 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." - Joseph Smith


          7UP: We are created in "the image and likeness of God." That is the truth. Do you know the meaning of "image"? If you stand in the light, and your shape casts a shadow in the same figure ... that is what your "image" is. It merely means "a sketch, or an outline" of it's physical form.

          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
          False. I've schooled you more than once on what 'tselem means, and it is not physical copies.
          You lost that debate ... badly ... as you are soon about to be reminded.

          Psalm 73:20 As a dream when one awaketh; so, O Lord, when thou awakest, thou shalt despise their image.


          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
          Why would God despise their physical resemblance, especially if it looks just like His?
          The word tzelem appears over and over in the Hebrew Bible. There are perhaps 2 instances where an argument can even be attempted to say that the term does not refer to physicality. And even then it is questionable.

          Psalm 73:20 is actually making a reference to what I had said previously, which is the idea of a "phantom" or "shadow". The imagery still is in reference to shape and form. The same goes for Psalm 39:6, which is also a poetic reference to a shadow.

          This is simple. God ordered them not to look around at the creations and then make physical representations of those creations in the forms of statues and images: "Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth."

          So, instead of looking at the many concrete references of "images", which all refer to a physical shape/form and visual appearance, you Bill, have to try to run to the two poetic uses of the word tselem which are found in the Psalms. But even then your argument fails, because even the poetic language is still referring to a "shadow" , which is meant to evoke poetic imagery in the mind of the reader which refers to a shape/form/shadow.

          This is just like the concept of "oneness". Instead of understanding the concept as it is used elsewhere in the text, like John 17, you try to twist a new meaning into it.

          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
          Marc Zvi Brettler, a Jewish Orthodox scholar, wrote:

          “The word tzelem (image) elsewhere always refers to a physical representation. For example, the Book of Ezekiel uses tzelem when it refers to ‘men sculptured upon the walls, figures of Chaldeans drawn in vermilion’ (23:14) or when it accuses Israel of fornicating with ‘phallic images (16:17). The word often refers to idols (e.g., Num. 33:52; Ezek. 7:20; Amos 5:26; 2 Chron. 23:17). It always signifies a concrete entity rather than an abstract one. This is not surprising since the Bible (in contrast to most medieval philosophical traditions, both Jewish and Christian) often depicts God in corporeal terms, as in Exodus 24:10: ‘and they saw the God of Israel: under His feet…’”

          Marc Zvi Brettler; How to Read the Bible, 43-44.

          The word tselem or “image” referred to the creation of man in God’s visual appearance, the language itself was formulaic in the ancient Near East. For example:

          “In the myth of creating man and king, Belet-ili’s invitation to Ea (obv. 1. 8′) nibnīma ṣalam ṭiṭṭi ‘let us create an image of clay’ strikingly echoes God’s invitation (to whom? Gen 1:26) na‘aśeh ’ādām beṣalmēnû ‘Let us create a man in our image . . .’ This is an interesting combination of several ideas which appear separately in the biblical creation accounts, namely, the consultation with other gods as well as the use of ṣalam -both resembling Gen 1:26-27, and the creation of man from clay as in Gen 2:7. Subsequent verses mention calling the new creature “man” (obv. 28′ cf. Gen 5:2), and pinching off clay to form the man (obv. 14′), an idea found in Job 33:6 in identical language.” Victor Hurowitz, “Book Review of R. J. Clifford, Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and in the Bible” in Jewish Quarterly Review 87 (1997): 414.
          -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

          7UP: If the ancient heathens (or even Israelites) saw an eagle, and they looked at its shape and then created a statue out of stone in that same form/shape, then they had just created an "image".

          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
          Correct. But 'tselem referred to much more than just a physical likeness. It was an authority representation of a deity's power.
          No it wasn't. They have no authority or power. There are all kinds of derogatory contexts for the term "images" in the Biblical text that attribute no power or authority to these shapes, forms, "images". Look at the list and you will see that many of them do not attribute power or authority at all to these "images" and simply call them abominable. You are grasping at straws here Bill.

          When Adam had a son "Seth" in his "image" and in his "likeness", all it is saying is that Adam's son looked like his father. It is another way of saying that the "apple didn't fall far from the tree". They looked alike and they are the same kind, which is a common theme found in the Genesis text, just like every seed and animal reproduces after its own kind (Gen 1:11). An apple tree reproduces more apple trees. Birds reproduce more birds, and men reproduce more men, after the same image and likeness. Here is the context:

          Gen 5:1 "In the day of God's preparing man, in the likeness of God He hath made him; 2 a male and a female He created them, and He blesseth them, and calleth their name Man, in the day of their being created. 3 And Adam liveth an hundred and thirty years, and begetteth a son in his likeness, according to his image, and calleth his name Seth. 4 And the days of Adam after his begetting Seth are eight hundred years, and he begetteth sons and daughters.


          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
          The Ba'al 'tselem shows a man with a bull's head. Was there really a bull headed man walking around Canaan?
          A bull headed man is simply what they imagined their false god to look like. The false god didn't exist, so they hadn't seen it, so they had to invent with their imagination what they thought the god would look like. That's all.



          7UP: Likewise, the word "likeness" usually speaks of a visual / physical form. For example: "king Ahaz sent to Urijah the priest the fashion/likeness of the altar, and the pattern of it, according to all the workmanship thereof." (1 Kings 16:10). What does the Hebrew mean when someone in the Bible said something had the "likeness of a man"? Do they mean that it sounded, acted, thought, smelled like a man? NO! It means that it looked like a man.

          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
          Seth is said to be in Adam's "image and likeness". If both prior sons are gone (one dead, one exiled) then it makes sense to say this because it indicates Seth is vested with Adam's authority as his first-born. It is pointless as a comment on Seth looking like Adam.
          It isn't pointless. As you can see in the context, it is referring to the simple truth of human kind reproducing according to the order of God, the same kind begetting sons and daughters in their own likeness and image.

          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
          Gen. 9:6 gives a reason for deserved retribution: You have killed God's representative who has His authority. It makes no sense to suppose that capital punishment is warranted for killing someone because they LOOK like God. Murder is the crime here, but the real point of offense is not that you killed someone, but that you messed their body up?
          The context of that passage has God contrasting men to animals. Men are made in the image of God and animals are not. It is o.k. to kill eat/use animals for food to support human life, but it is not o.k. to kill men, because God wills that men multiply on the face of the Earth.

          "3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. 4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. 5 Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man. 6 “Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man. 7 And as for you, be fruitful and multiply; Bring forth abundantly in the earth And multiply in it.”

          This all goes back to the same theme mentioned previously, namely that men are to reproduce/multiply after their own kind, in the same image and likeness that God created them.

          -7up

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            I find you rather boring. You will do or say ANYTHING to believe Smith was a real prophet, and the Book of Mormon is true. You're wrong on both counts.

            You will play word games, ...

            More deflecting and attempting to change the subject. Just admit that your religion includes the idea of a man, who is Deity, and this man has supernatural powers, and this God/Man is spoken of in scripture as one living on a planet.

            The word games were being played by those anti-Mormons on this forum who attempted to mock the LDS religion.

            How'd that work out?

            -7up

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by seven7up View Post
              More deflecting and attempting to change the subject.
              Nope. MY whole faith is based upon the fact that Christ was who He said He was, and that he rose from the dead just like He said.

              YOUR whole faith is based on a con man, liar and money digger (among other things) being a "for really Prophet". I just keep coming back to the HEART of the issue.

              Just admit that your religion includes the idea of a man, who is Deity, and this man has supernatural powers, and this God/Man is spoken of in scripture as one living on a planet.
              I have no problem at all admitting that Jesus was God in the flesh -- I preach that as a constant theme. To play this silly game that I "don't admit" that is just flat out dishonest. (And Christ "lived on this planet" for a very brief period of time)

              The word games were being played by those anti-Mormons on this forum who attempted to mock the LDS religion.
              Nope. Show what "word games" are being played by us. Mormons change the meaning of words all the time to try to make their conflicting teachings "mesh", and to sucker in people who don't understand that Mormons mean DIFFERENT things when they use the same terms we use.

              How'd that work out?

              -7up
              I'm not "anti-Mormon" -- I'm anti false religion.
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                and this God/Man is spoken of in scripture as one living on a planet.
                Here is an example of your dishonesty --- the Bible spoke of Jesus having LIVED on this planet, and for an incredibly brief period of time, relatively. God became flesh and dwelt among us, but (I hope you understand this concept) is no longer LIVING here in the flesh.
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by seven7up View Post

                  Power and authority was bestowed upon Jesus Christ. Who gave Christ power and authority? His Father.
                  Power and authority was bestowed upon the Apostles too. That in no way made them God.

                  Jesus Christ is a man.
                  Which has absolutely ZILCH to do with His being God.

                  He is also Deity/God.
                  And has forever been so.

                  He is also EXALTED.

                  Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name. (Phil 2:9)
                  And the term "exalted" does not mean elevated to godhood. So, this has absolutely nothing to do with the Mormon claim of Elohim being elevated into godhood.


                  Does God need to have authority in order to be God?
                  No. God has authority because He is God.

                  Show me from scripture that Jesus Christ was considered God before he was "begotten" of the Father? And I don't mean being "begotten" in mortality.
                  There was never a time "before" He was begotten, so your request is a red herring.


                  The problem is that you will claim that Jesus is being "eternally begotten", which is a concept not taught in scripture.
                  So, when ever did God lack Wisdom? If Wisdom is not eternally possessed, and begotten by the Father, then when did He gain it?


                  I agree that being a man is not what makes Jesus Deity. I never said that every man is Deity.
                  There is only ONE man who is deity, and that is the one who took on humanity that was eternally deity to begin with.

                  Therefore, in Christianity, you cannot deny the idea that the fulness of Deity/God can dwell within a man, who has supernatural powers.
                  Only if the deity took on humanity as an additional nature. Humanity by itself can not take on divinity as an additional nature. That is where your attempt fails miserably.


                  We all knew the answer, but it is nice to see it all spelled out.
                  And it shows the Mormon belief in human exaltation is spelled B-O-L-O-G-N-A


                  Yes. I admit to be "ignorant" of an invented version of a false conception of God's supposed literal omnipresence, which contradicts scripture.
                  No it does not. Scripture is quite clear that God is everywhere, and there is nowhere we can go that He is not.


                  Ad hominem.
                  It was an appropriate response. Fallacies are sometimes called for, and here is one such instance.

                  I see that this is going to be a trend here on this forum when people get caught in their contradictions. Try to deflect and change the subject, and attempt personal attacks.
                  THAT??? From YOU of all people!!!????? Hypocrite much???

                  The more that Trinitarians attempt to explain "trinitarian thought" , the more they expose themselves, but repeatedly contradicting previous statements.
                  Your logical fallacy character is... The Escapist.

                  You lost that debate ... badly ... as you are soon about to be reminded.
                  You handwaved linguistics experts and continued to reassert your claim.

                  Psalm 73:20 As a dream when one awaketh; so, O Lord, when thou awakest, thou shalt despise their image.
                  The word tzelem appears over and over in the Hebrew Bible. There are perhaps 2 instances where an argument can even be attempted to say that the term does not refer to physicality. And even then it is questionable.[/quote]

                  An unproven assertion. Nearly every passage that you claim supports your case can be used to support mine.

                  Psalm 73:20 is actually making a reference to what I had said previously, which is the idea of a "phantom" or "shadow". The imagery still is in reference to shape and form.
                  No it is not. It is referring to God taking note of the wicked, and how He despises them, not based on what they look like, or a shape they take, but their vain authority that they think they possess.

                  The same goes for Psalm 39:6, which is also a poetic reference to a shadow.
                  Not even close. It is a poetic reference to a man's self-importance, as David goes on to say that they gather riches with no reason to do so when they die.

                  This is simple. God ordered them not to look around at the creations and then make physical representations of those creations in the forms of statues and images: "Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth."
                  Yet, He told them immediately thereafter to make a brass serpent, gold cherubim, and a host of other things in the temple that He forbid here in this verse, did He not? If it were merely the physical form He cared about, He would not have instructed them to build anything, would He? But since "image" refers to authority, He could tell them to build them because they would house HIS authority at HIS direction.

                  So, instead of looking at the many concrete references of "images", which all refer to a physical shape/form and visual appearance, you Bill, have to try to run to the two poetic uses of the word tselem which are found in the Psalms.
                  Which completely destroys your attempt to make it mean something physical.

                  But even then your argument fails, because even the poetic language is still referring to a "shadow" , which is meant to evoke poetic imagery in the mind of the reader which refers to a shape/form/shadow.
                  God despises human shadows now?

                  This is just like the concept of "oneness". Instead of understanding the concept as it is used elsewhere in the text, like John 17, you try to twist a new meaning into it.
                  Context dictates what "kind" of oneness is being referred to in Greek. The problem is that you look at one type and try to apply it to all others. Right foot on Green, 7up.

                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                  Marc Zvi Brettler, a Jewish Orthodox scholar, wrote:

                  “The word tzelem (image) elsewhere always refers to a physical representation. For example, the Book of Ezekiel uses tzelem when it refers to ‘men sculptured upon the walls, figures of Chaldeans drawn in vermilion’ (23:14) or when it accuses Israel of fornicating with ‘phallic images (16:17). The word often refers to idols (e.g., Num. 33:52; Ezek. 7:20; Amos 5:26; 2 Chron. 23:17). It always signifies a concrete entity rather than an abstract one. This is not surprising since the Bible (in contrast to most medieval philosophical traditions, both Jewish and Christian) often depicts God in corporeal terms, as in Exodus 24:10: ‘and they saw the God of Israel: under His feet…’”

                  Marc Zvi Brettler; How to Read the Bible, 43-44.

                  and it comes just after Brettler calls it "a creation myth". Brettler is a proponent of the JEDP theory stating the Tanakh was a compilation of strictly human writings and that Judaism's religious roots are strictly a product of ethnic heritage and not the result of divine intervention producing writings of a revelatory nature surpassing the knowledge and wisdom of humanity. (From the reviews section of the book from Amazon)

                  12th century rabbi, Eeazar ben Judah of Worms stated "If God, who is past all knowing, had not appeared to the prophets as a king on a throne, they would not have known how to pray to Him at all."
                  - 'Eleazar ben Judah of Worms', in Bowker, J., The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions (Oxford, OUP 1997), p. 308.

                  This view, that God is so utterly transcendent that all human conceptions of Him are just approximations to His true being and glory go as far back as the Book of Ezekiel, written in the early 6th century BC, where the prophet states that his vision of the Lord was merely 'the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord.' (Ezekiel 1: 28)
                  (From http://www.tektonics.org/guest/dawkdel.html)


                  The word tselem or “image” referred to the creation of man in God’s visual appearance, the language itself was formulaic in the ancient Near East. For example:

                  “In the myth of creating man and king, Belet-ili’s invitation to Ea (obv. 1. 8′) nibnīma ṣalam ṭiṭṭi ‘let us create an image of clay’ strikingly echoes God’s invitation (to whom? Gen 1:26) na‘aśeh ’ādām beṣalmēnû ‘Let us create a man in our image . . .’ This is an interesting combination of several ideas which appear separately in the biblical creation accounts, namely, the consultation with other gods as well as the use of ṣalam -both resembling Gen 1:26-27, and the creation of man from clay as in Gen 2:7. Subsequent verses mention calling the new creature “man” (obv. 28′ cf. Gen 5:2), and pinching off clay to form the man (obv. 14′), an idea found in Job 33:6 in identical language.” Victor Hurowitz, “Book Review of R. J. Clifford, Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and in the Bible” in Jewish Quarterly Review 87 (1997): 414.
                  -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                  https://www.lds.org/ensign/1994/09/t...steal?lang=eng
                  If you are going to plagiarize, please at least give a link to where you are thieving these quotes from:
                  http://lehislibrary.wordpress.com/20...-126-27-image/

                  Source: https://www.academia.edu/1162040/Divine_Fluidity_The_Priestly_Texts_in_their_Ancient_Near_Eastern_Contexts


                  Multiplicity of divine forms is such a common phenomenon in the ANE that it requires little elaboration. On a fundamental level, most deities are at once present in their heavenly abodes as well as in their various cultic manifestations in terrestrial temples, a phenomenon most easily evidenced by appealing to the various sun deities who are simultaneously present in their cult image(s) and in or as the sun itself. Many deities, especially in Mesopotamia and Egypt, are simultaneously present in far more numerous and diverse forms. For example, Mesopotamian Ištar is simultaneously identified as a divine person who dwells in heaven, yet is localized in various terrestrial temples (most prominently Arbela and Nineveh), the planet Venus, the number 15, the semi-precious stone lapis lazuli and the mineral lead and understood as the embodiment of such qualities as love and war

                  In the Priestly texts, YHWH limits his point of contact with humanity to a single place and to an indescribable form, which may not be reproduced, and gives a single protocol for interaction, thereby liminating all other places, modes of contact, and means of representation. At the same time, YHWH’s self-limitation in no way limits his potency, fluidity, multiplicity and potentiality, only the people’s access to it.

                  DIVINE FLUIDITY?
                  THE PRIESTLY TEXTS IN THEIR ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN CONTEXTS
                  MICHAEL B. HUNDLEY
                  Ludwig Maximilians University Munich

                  © Copyright Original Source




                  No it wasn't. They have no authority or power. There are all kinds of derogatory contexts for the term "images" in the Biblical text that attribute no power or authority to these shapes, forms, "images". Look at the list and you will see that many of them do not attribute power or authority at all to these "images" and simply call them abominable. You are grasping at straws here Bill.
                  A 'tselem had as much authority as the one who used it assigned to it. you just refuse to admit that the term means far more than just a physical resemblance when I have quite clearly shown that it does.


                  When Adam had a son "Seth" in his "image" and in his "likeness", all it is saying is that Adam's son looked like his father.
                  Well, who else would he have looked like? Sorry, but what I claim fits, and what you claim is ridiculously redundant.

                  It is another way of saying that the "apple didn't fall far from the tree". They looked alike and they are the same kind, which is a common theme found in the Genesis text, just like every seed and animal reproduces after its own kind (Gen 1:11). An apple tree reproduces more apple trees. Birds reproduce more birds, and men reproduce more men, after the same image and likeness. Here is the context:

                  Gen 5:1 "In the day of God's preparing man, in the likeness of God He hath made him; 2 a male and a female He created them, and He blesseth them, and calleth their name Man, in the day of their being created. 3 And Adam liveth an hundred and thirty years, and begetteth a son in his likeness, according to his image, and calleth his name Seth. 4 And the days of Adam after his begetting Seth are eight hundred years, and he begetteth sons and daughters.
                  Saying Seth was in the same physical form as his father is terribly redundant. Were the others in the form of some other animal, plant, or mineral? Were Abel and Cain perhaps girraffes?


                  A bull headed man is simply what they imagined their false god to look like.
                  No he wasn't. They did not think he "looked" like anything. He could "manifest" in that form, but that was not his true form.

                  The false god didn't exist, so they hadn't seen it, so they had to invent with their imagination what they thought the god would look like. That's all.
                  No. They created a 'tselem that symbolized power and fertility for Ba'al to inhabit.


                  It isn't pointless. As you can see in the context, it is referring to the simple truth of human kind reproducing according to the order of God, the same kind begetting sons and daughters in their own likeness and image.
                  And out of all of Adam and Eve's children, only the one who would be the eldest is said to be in Adam's image. None else. That fits perfectly with the claim I made.


                  The context of that passage has God contrasting men to animals. Men are made in the image of God and animals are not. It is o.k. to kill eat/use animals for food to support human life, but it is not o.k. to kill men, because God wills that men multiply on the face of the Earth.
                  It is not because men look like God. It is because they have God's authority on them, which is the point of the first part of Vs. 6. Shedding a man's blood was punishable by death via another man (hence God's authority was on man to exact the punishment of destroying that with God's authority on it)
                  That's what
                  - She

                  Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                  - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                  I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                  - Stephen R. Donaldson

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    7up: Power and authority was bestowed upon Jesus Christ. Who gave Christ power and authority? His Father.

                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    Power and authority was bestowed upon the Apostles too. That in no way made them God.
                    You are avoiding the discussion. You mockingly called the LDS God a "man with supernatural powers". Yet interestingly enough, that is a description of Jesus Christ, who you claim to be Deity/God. You also pretend to take offense to the idea that the LDS God is "exalted", yet I can point you to many scriptures in the Bible which refer to Jesus as being "exalted".

                    7up: Jesus Christ is a man.

                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    Which has absolutely ZILCH to do with His being God.
                    And if you ask any knowledgeable member of the LDS Church, you will find that they also will tell you that Jesus Christ was God/Deity prior to entering mortality. So, you have still not addressed why you take offense to these ideas.

                    7up; (Jesus) is also Deity/God.

                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    And has forever been so.
                    Most Bible scholars or theologians are humble enough to admit that it does not address what God was doing prior to the creation of the Universe as we know it. You, however, ...

                    7up: (Jesus) is also EXALTED.

                    Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name. (Phil 2:9)

                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    And the term "exalted" does not mean elevated to godhood. So, this has absolutely nothing to do with the Mormon claim of Elohim being elevated into godhood.
                    As I explained, Mormons believe that Jesus Christ was already God/Deity BEFORE entering mortality. So, you are still not representing the LDS position accurately, despite having to be constantly reminded.

                    7up: Does God need to have authority in order to be God?

                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    No. God has authority because He is God.
                    You miss the point. IF God did not have authority, then would God be God? Was Jesus Christ God/Deity before the Father gave Jesus authority?

                    7up: Show me from scripture that Jesus Christ was considered God before he was "begotten" of the Father? And I don't mean being "begotten" in mortality.

                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    There was never a time "before" He was begotten, so your request is a red herring.
                    That is because you are forced by your theology to deny the idea that Jesus is "begotten" of the Father in a sense that is even recognizable by the use of the term "begotten". Instead, you must hold to a Trinitarian conception of Jesus constantly being issued forth from the Father, a new non-scriptural phrase "eternally begotten" was created in order to express this man made idea.

                    7up: The problem is that you will claim that Jesus is being "eternally begotten", which is a concept not taught in scripture.

                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    So, when ever did God lack Wisdom? If Wisdom is not eternally possessed, and begotten by the Father, then when did He gain it?
                    As I said, the Bible addresses the world and Universe as we know it. The text of the Old Testament or New Testament does not address what God was doing or what was occurring before the Creation.

                    Besides, you don't even appear to realize how the term "eternal" is used by the Biblical text.

                    7up; I agree that being a man is not what makes Jesus Deity. I never said that every man is Deity.

                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    There is only ONE man who is deity, and that is the one who took on humanity that was eternally deity to begin with.
                    See above.

                    7up: Therefore, in Christianity, you cannot deny the idea that the fulness of Deity/God can dwell within a man, who has supernatural powers.

                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    Only if the deity took on humanity as an additional nature.
                    And on what basis do you deny that possibility to God the Father?

                    In John chapter 5, the Savior says, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel." Then the Savior begins to describe the future resurrection, "For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will." Now, in verses 25 and 26, "The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself." (John 5:25-26)

                    Clearly, the context is concerning resurrection, and the phrases "shall live" or "to have life in himself" refer to the resurrection. The Father is referred to as having "life in himself" in the same sense that Jesus will in the resurrection. Therefore, you cannot claim that the LDS theology of God the Father having a resurrected body is inconsistent with the Biblical text. It is quite consistent.

                    So, yes. The Father has life in himself in the same sense as the dead who are resurrected will have life. The Father is a resurrected being, and the Son is a resurrected being.

                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    Humanity by itself can not take on divinity as an additional nature. That is where your attempt fails miserably.
                    I never said humanity could do it "by itself". You insist on misrepresenting the LDS religion.

                    Yes. I admit to be "ignorant" of an invented version of a false conception of God's supposed literal omnipresence, which contradicts scripture.

                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    No it does not. Scripture is quite clear that God is everywhere, and there is nowhere we can go that He is not.
                    As we discussed in the other thread, it comes down to in what sense God is everywhere. You have been unable to support your opinion on the matter, or even successfully express what your opinion even is on the matter.

                    7up: Ad hominem.

                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    It was an appropriate response. Fallacies are sometimes called for, and here is one such instance.
                    Great Bill. I will keep that in mind.

                    7up: I see that this is going to be a trend here on this forum when people get caught in their contradictions. Try to deflect and change the subject, and attempt personal attacks.

                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    THAT??? From YOU of all people!!!????? Hypocrite much???
                    Your previous post had an ad hominem / personal insult against me. Then you turn around and accuse me. Now back it up.

                    7up: The more that Trinitarians attempt to explain "trinitarian thought" , the more they expose themselves, but repeatedly contradicting previous statements.

                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    Your logical fallacy character is... The Escapist.
                    Again, you accuse. No back it up.

                    7up: You lost that debate (about tselem referring to something other than physical form) ... badly ... as you are soon about to be reminded.

                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    You handwaved linguistics experts and continued to reassert your claim.
                    Nonsense. I directly addressed the actual word usage in the text. I hand waved the bias of Trinitarians and explained exactly why their assertions to not fit with scripture.

                    7up: The word tzelem appears over and over in the Hebrew Bible. There are perhaps 2 instances where an argument can even be attempted to say that the term does not refer to physicality. And even then it is questionable.

                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    An unproven assertion. Nearly every passage that you claim supports your case can be used to support mine.
                    And your case starts with taking a phrase like, “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image” , and you pretend that it does not refer to making a physical statue or form. The meaning and interpretation is clear, and you have to attempt mental gymnastics in order to avoid the obvious meaning of the text.

                    7up: Psalm 73:20 is actually making a reference to what I had said previously, which is the idea of a "phantom" or "shadow". The imagery still is in reference to shape and form.

                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    No it is not. It is referring to God taking note of the wicked, and how He despises them,...
                    That is the context. I am talking about the meaning of the word tselem. It refers to the shape, form. That is the imagery that is used to make the point.

                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    .... not based on what they look like, or a shape they take, but their vain authority that they think they possess.
                    7up: The same goes for Psalm 39:6, which is also a poetic reference to a shadow.

                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    Not even close. It is a poetic reference to a man's self-importance, as David goes on to say that they gather riches with no reason to do so when they die.
                    Again, that is the context, but you are avoiding what the actual word means everywhere in the Biblical text. This is what you are attempting to do with the Psalmist Bill. If someone says, "that is a web of lies". You are attempting to pretend that the poet does not want to bring the visual imagery of a "web" into the mind of the reader. That is nonsense. Of course the poet wants that imagery, otherwise he would not have use the word. We all know what a web is, and we know what it looks like.

                    It is simple: The word "image" when translated from the Hebrew tselem means "shape, resemblance, figure, shadow."

                    7up: This is simple. God ordered them not to look around at the creations and then make physical representations of those creations in the forms of statues and images: "Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth."

                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    Yet, He told them immediately thereafter to make a brass serpent, ... did He not? If it were merely the physical form He cared about, He would not have instructed them to build anything, would He? But since "image" refers to authority, He could tell them to build them because they would house HIS authority at HIS direction.
                    It was still an image of a serpent. Where the Israelites were when this image was made, is called Zalmonah, which has this similar meaning of image, shadow, etc. The brass serpent itself became an "idol" and was later destroyed (see 2 Kings 18:4) because the Israelites wanted to worship it. There are images everywhere in our lives. That is not the issue. The problem arises when an image is turned into an idol which is worshiped instead of the living God.

                    7up: So, instead of looking at the many concrete references of "images", which all refer to a physical shape/form and visual appearance, you Bill, have to try to run to the two poetic uses of the word tselem which are found in the Psalms.

                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    Which completely destroys your attempt to make it mean something physical.
                    Not even close. Your attempt of referring to these poetic references, which are the minority by the way, STILL fails. Just like "web" is actually referring to a physical object, it can be used poetically but STILL brings in the imagery of the actual physical object. Simple.

                    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                    Marc Zvi Brettler, a Jewish Orthodox scholar, wrote:

                    “The word tzelem (image) elsewhere always refers to a physical representation. For example, the Book of Ezekiel uses tzelem when it refers to ‘men sculptured upon the walls, figures of Chaldeans drawn in vermilion’ (23:14) or when it accuses Israel of fornicating with ‘phallic images (16:17). The word often refers to idols (e.g., Num. 33:52; Ezek. 7:20; Amos 5:26; 2 Chron. 23:17). It always signifies a concrete entity rather than an abstract one. This is not surprising since the Bible (in contrast to most medieval philosophical traditions, both Jewish and Christian) often depicts God in corporeal terms, as in Exodus 24:10: ‘and they saw the God of Israel: under His feet…’”
                    Marc Zvi Brettler; How to Read the Bible, 43-44.

                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    and it comes just after Brettler calls it "a creation myth". Brettler is a proponent of the JEDP theory stating the Tanakh was a compilation of strictly human writings and that Judaism's religious roots are strictly a product of ethnic heritage and not the result of divine intervention producing writings of a revelatory nature surpassing the knowledge and wisdom of humanity. (From the reviews section of the book from Amazon)
                    You refer to Brettler's opinion about the origin of the text. We are talking about what the text means, more specifically, what the text originally meant. Nice try though.

                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    12th century rabbi, Eeazar ben Judah of Worms stated "If God, who is past all knowing, had not appeared to the prophets as a king on a throne, they would not have known how to pray to Him at all."
                    - 'Eleazar ben Judah of Worms', in Bowker, J., The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions (Oxford, OUP 1997), p. 308.
                    So, the view here is that God had to deceive people into believing that God had arms, hands, etc. ... but God really doesn't. Good one.

                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    This view, that God is so utterly transcendent that all human conceptions of Him are just approximations to His true being and glory go as far back as the Book of Ezekiel, written in the early 6th century BC, where the prophet states that his vision of the Lord was merely 'the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord.' (Ezekiel 1: 28)
                    (From http://www.tektonics.org/guest/dawkdel.html)
                    There is no "merely" about it. Trust me that when Christ returns in all of his power and glory, it will not be "merely".

                    7up: The word tselem or “image” referred to the creation of man in God’s visual appearance, the language itself was formulaic in the ancient Near East. For example:

                    “In the myth of creating man and king, Belet-ili’s invitation to Ea (obv. 1. 8′) nibnīma ṣalam ṭiṭṭi ‘let us create an image of clay’ strikingly echoes God’s invitation (to whom? Gen 1:26) na‘aśeh ’ādām beṣalmēnû ‘Let us create a man in our image . . .’ This is an interesting combination of several ideas which appear separately in the biblical creation accounts, namely, the consultation with other gods as well as the use of ṣalam -both resembling Gen 1:26-27, and the creation of man from clay as in Gen 2:7. Subsequent verses mention calling the new creature “man” (obv. 28′ cf. Gen 5:2), and pinching off clay to form the man (obv. 14′), an idea found in Job 33:6 in identical language.” Victor Hurowitz, “Book Review of R. J. Clifford, Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and in the Bible” in Jewish Quarterly Review 87 (1997): 414. (https://www.lds.org/ensign/1994/09/t...steal?lang=eng ; http://lehislibrary.wordpress.com/20...-126-27-image/)
                    -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                    7up: They (false idols) have no authority or power. There are all kinds of derogatory contexts for the term "images" in the Biblical text that attribute no power or authority to these shapes, forms, "images". Look at the list and you will see that many of them do not attribute power or authority at all to these "images" and simply call them abominable.

                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    A 'tselem had as much authority as the one who used it assigned to it. you just refuse to admit that the term means far more than just a physical resemblance when I have quite clearly shown that it does.
                    People may have pretended that these images and statues had more significance, but the Biblical text calls it for what it is. They were nothing more that physical forms and shapes fashioned by men out of stone, gold, wood, etc.

                    7up: When Adam had a son "Seth" in his "image" and in his "likeness", all it is saying is that Adam's son looked like his father. It is another way of saying that the "apple didn't fall far from the tree".

                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    Well, who else would he have looked like? Sorry, but what I claim fits, and what you claim is ridiculously redundant.
                    When a couple has several children, some may resemble their mother more than the father. Sometimes they don't even look very much like either. It is not redundant to say that Seth looked just like his Father. When people say, "He looks just like his father." Do you turn to them and say, "what you just said is 'ridiculously redundant'"? Of course not. A simple and straight forward reading of the text is the best way.

                    Here is another non-LDS link of a pastor, who has to admit this straightforward interpretation: http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/...170/Tselem.htm

                    7up: They looked alike and they are the same kind, which is a common theme found in the Genesis text, just like every seed and animal reproduces after its own kind (Gen 1:11). An apple tree reproduces more apple trees. Birds reproduce more birds, and men reproduce more men, after the same image and likeness. Here is the context:

                    Gen 5:1 "In the day of God's preparing man, in the likeness of God He hath made him; 2 a male and a female He created them, and He blesseth them, and calleth their name Man, in the day of their being created. 3 And Adam liveth an hundred and thirty years, and begetteth a son in his likeness, according to his image, and calleth his name Seth. 4 And the days of Adam after his begetting Seth are eight hundred years, and he begetteth sons and daughters.

                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    Saying Seth was in the same physical form as his father is terribly redundant.
                    People say these kinds of things all of the time. It is perfectly reasonable and you know it.

                    -7up

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Really, the conversation with Bill about the meaning of tselem is quite silly.

                      What does the word mean? As the word usage (both inside and outside of the Bible) will show the meaning of the word צלם (tselem) to be literally a shadow, which is the outline or shape and visual representation of the original.

                      "The Hebrew term tselem derives from the Akkadian word tsalmu. According to Irene J. Winter, the word means, “consistently and only, image, which then may occure as a statue, or a stele, carved in relief, painted, drawn, or engraved.” A theologically oriented interpretation of tselem emphasizes only the spiritual quality. However, if God does not have a physical image, how can humans be created in his tselem, in the technical sense of the term? Winter's etymological definition repudiates outright the philosophical interpretations of the kind found in Jewish commentaries, to the effect that the term indicates primarily a spiritual representation of a certain being. Professor Simo Parpola has indicated to me that the term may , secondarily, refer to spiritual qualities as well. This does not remove, or displace, the more physical sense suggested by etymology. In the story of Gen. 1, God created humans in his tselem, as man and woman. This cannot but be a signal which, in this particular case, tells us that the word Tselem refers to something that is primarily physical." Rituals and Ritual Theory in Ancient Israel By Ithamar Gruenwald Pg 109


                      Contrary to these well researched and logical conclusions, Bill the Cat on this forum argues that tselem does not include the physical, but instead refers only to "authority". However, the Hebrew word "toqeph" (or any other word) is not being used in the scriptures we are discussing. Bill's assertion has no merit.

                      Mormons use the word as originally meant and understood in the text we have in the Bible. Then these biased theologians and anti-Mormons come in and criticize believers of the LDS faith for holding to "unBiblical" doctrines and teachings. Yet it is quite clear, that the opposite is true.

                      -7up

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                        Mormons use the word as originally meant and understood in the text we have in the Bible. Then these biased theologians and anti-Mormons come in and criticize believers of the LDS faith for holding to "unBiblical" doctrines and teachings. Yet it is quite clear, that the opposite is true.

                        -7up
                        Your doctrines change with every wind that blows -- either according to what directly benefits your leaders ("God will DESTROY my wife if she doesn't go along with my indiscretions"), or what is more "in line" ("Blacks in the Priesthood -- we've ALWAYS supported that!") or "out of line" ("YOU, TOO can be God -- but WAIT, there's MORE!!!!) with mainline Christianity, as benefits your Church.
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          I have very limited time for now, so I will just make a few highlights. If I feel like it, I will go back later and make a more substantive post, but I really think just showing your attempted slight of hand here will be sufficient.


                          Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                          7up: Power and authority was bestowed upon Jesus Christ. Who gave Christ power and authority? His Father.



                          You are avoiding the discussion. You mockingly called the LDS God a "man with supernatural powers". Yet interestingly enough, that is a description of Jesus Christ, who you claim to be Deity/God. You also pretend to take offense to the idea that the LDS God is "exalted", yet I can point you to many scriptures in the Bible which refer to Jesus as being "exalted".
                          The discussion was quite straightforward. You claimed that power being bestowed on Jesus is what made Him God. I showed otherwise.


                          7up: Jesus Christ is a man.



                          And if you ask any knowledgeable member of the LDS Church, you will find that they also will tell you that Jesus Christ was God/Deity prior to entering mortality. So, you have still not addressed why you take offense to these ideas.
                          Because your church claims that Jesus obtained Godhood at a later point after His "organization". As I asked on another thread, which you never answered:

                          How can Jehovah (Jesus) have earned his godhood from his father Elohim (Heavenly Father), who earned his own, say that there was no God formed before him, when his father clearly was formed before him in the Father's own mortal existence? Had Jesus even been organized when the Father was just a mortal?


                          7up; (Jesus) is also Deity/God.



                          Most Bible scholars or theologians are humble enough to admit that it does not address what God was doing prior to the creation of the Universe as we know it. You, however, ...
                          Ah, the "Most Scholars" fallacy. And that in no way addresses the eternal nature of Jesus' divinity. No orthodox Christian scholar claims that Jesus "earned" His divinity well after being "organized".

                          7up: (Jesus) is also EXALTED.

                          Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name. (Phil 2:9)



                          As I explained, Mormons believe that Jesus Christ was already God/Deity BEFORE entering mortality. So, you are still not representing the LDS position accurately, despite having to be constantly reminded.
                          Yes I am. The Mormon position is that Elohim organized Jehovah, and later made him a god in the pre-mortal existence. Jehovah was also not one of Elohim's mortal children in Elohim's mortal life. Please tell me where I am wrong.

                          7up: Does God need to have authority in order to be God?



                          You miss the point. IF God did not have authority, then would God be God?
                          That's a silly question. That's like saying if a fire didn't have a flame, then fire be fire? It is impossible for God to NOT have authority. All you have done is reworded Euthyphro's dilemma with a different attribute of God.

                          Was Jesus Christ God/Deity before the Father gave Jesus authority?
                          Depends on what you mean. What authority did Jesus ever lack? The entire natural world obeyed His commands. Again, authority is not what makes one God. It is a consequence of being God. When "all power and authority" was given to Him, it was as Lord of the earth. Satan's power was gone. It did not make Him any more or less God.

                          7up: Show me from scripture that Jesus Christ was considered God before he was "begotten" of the Father? And I don't mean being "begotten" in mortality.



                          That is because you are forced by your theology to deny the idea that Jesus is "begotten" of the Father in a sense that is even recognizable by the use of the term "begotten".
                          And you are forced by yours to take it as woodenly literal as possible, despite the numerous times it is used in a non-woodenly literal way. For instance, if we take your wooden literalism as how to translate gennao along with the Mormon false doctrine of pre-mortal spirit birth, in 1 John 5, we would see universalism:

                          I John 5:4 For whatsoever is born (gennao) of God overcometh the world...

                          Instead, you must hold to a Trinitarian conception of Jesus constantly being issued forth from the Father, a new non-scriptural phrase "eternally begotten" was created in order to express this man made idea.
                          And you must hold to anti-biblical ideas that Jesus was an "intelligence" that got organized by an exalted human being from another planet, who later granted godhood to this organized spirit. I'll take the attempt to explain the biblical concept with extra-biblical phrases over your clearly anti-Biblical heresies any day.


                          7up: The problem is that you will claim that Jesus is being "eternally begotten", which is a concept not taught in scripture.



                          As I said, the Bible addresses the world and Universe as we know it. The text of the Old Testament or New Testament does not address what God was doing or what was occurring before the Creation.
                          Source: CARM


                          The Bible primarily is a book about the redemption of man, and as such there are certain topics that are not exhaustively covered (c.f. Deut 29:29). One such topic is what happened prior to "in the beginning" Genesis 1:1.

                          However, we are not without clues, and what we do know includes the following:

                          1. There is only one eternal being (the Triune God) (c.f. Psalm 90:2)

                          2. He has the attribute of aseity (life in of Himself/not derived from anything else/self-existent) (c.f. John 5:26)

                          3. That all of creation was made after some time point--rather after time was created! (c.f. Genesis 1)

                          4. Another verse that will help us with this question is John 17:5 "Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was."

                          Therefore, we can summarize that before "in the beginning"/creation of all things, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit existed in perfect communion together in their full glory.

                          © Copyright Original Source



                          Besides, you don't even appear to realize how the term "eternal" is used by the Biblical text.
                          Sure I do. It's a rather broad term used by the limited vocabulary of the Hebrews. Your problem is that you think it only means what your heresy dictates.

                          7up; I agree that being a man is not what makes Jesus Deity. I never said that every man is Deity.

                          See above.
                          What about it?

                          7up: Therefore, in Christianity, you cannot deny the idea that the fulness of Deity/God can dwell within a man, who has supernatural powers.

                          And on what basis do you deny that possibility to God the Father?
                          Because the Father never came down to earth an incarnated. The Son did.

                          In John chapter 5, the Savior says, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel." Then the Savior begins to describe the future resurrection, "For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will." Now, in verses 25 and 26, "The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself." (John 5:25-26)

                          Clearly, the context is concerning resurrection, and the phrases "shall live" or "to have life in himself" refer to the resurrection.
                          In that our resurrection is because He is life and has life within Himself. He therefore is the one to call us from the grave, just as the Father called Him forth from His grave.

                          The Father is referred to as having "life in himself" in the same sense that Jesus will in the resurrection.
                          Correct. As having power over death, able to call us forth unto eternal and incorruptible life. It has nothing to do with the Father being resurrected, and everything to do with authority over death.

                          Therefore, you cannot claim that the LDS theology of God the Father having a resurrected body is inconsistent with the Biblical text. It is quite consistent.
                          Only if you twist and argue from your preconceived belief that He does.

                          So, yes. The Father has life in himself in the same sense as the dead who are resurrected will have life.
                          Wrong. The Father has life in Himself so He is able to resurrect the Son, and the Son has life in Himself, so He can resurrect us. We are NEVER said to have life in ourselves, even after we are resurrected. And the reason is that God is the source of life.

                          The Father is a resurrected being, and the Son is a resurrected being.
                          False.

                          Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

                          No god above God existed to resurrect Him.


                          I never said humanity could do it "by itself". You insist on misrepresenting the LDS religion.
                          You believe that you can one day be "like Him" in every way. That logically includes having life in yourself.

                          Yes. I admit to be "ignorant" of an invented version of a false conception of God's supposed literal omnipresence, which contradicts scripture.


                          As we discussed in the other thread, it comes down to in what sense God is everywhere. You have been unable to support your opinion on the matter, or even successfully express what your opinion even is on the matter.
                          I've expressed it just fine. You've done nothing to refute it. All you've done is misrepresent what I've said and then burned that strawman.

                          7up: I see that this is going to be a trend here on this forum when people get caught in their contradictions. Try to deflect and change the subject, and attempt personal attacks.



                          Your previous post had an ad hominem / personal insult against me. Then you turn around and accuse me. Now back it up.
                          You came here all high and mighty, dripping with smugness. We called you on it. Deal with it.

                          7up: The more that Trinitarians attempt to explain "trinitarian thought" , the more they expose themselves, but repeatedly contradicting previous statements.



                          Again, you accuse. No back it up.
                          Why? You'll just misrepresent and ignore again, as is standard for you.

                          7up: You lost that debate (about tselem referring to something other than physical form) ... badly ... as you are soon about to be reminded.



                          Nonsense. I directly addressed the actual word usage in the text. I hand waved the bias of Trinitarians and explained exactly why their assertions to not fit with scripture.
                          The scholars I cited were Egyptian linguists. They aren't even theists, much less Christian. This is the kind of crap I am referring to. You don't bother to even verify the facts before you go off on your baseless anti-Trinitarian rants. I mopped the floor with you in the other thread, and I'll do it again.


                          7up: The word tzelem appears over and over in the Hebrew Bible. There are perhaps 2 instances where an argument can even be attempted to say that the term does not refer to physicality. And even then it is questionable.



                          And your case starts with taking a phrase like, “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image” , and you pretend that it does not refer to making a physical statue or form.
                          No I don't. You start with a blatant misrepresentation yet again. It is a physical representation, yes, but it was rarely intended to mean an exact duplication of something else, although it could extend to that.

                          The meaning and interpretation is clear, and you have to attempt mental gymnastics in order to avoid the obvious meaning of the text.
                          It is clear. It just doesn't mean what you claim.

                          7up: Psalm 73:20 is actually making a reference to what I had said previously, which is the idea of a "phantom" or "shadow". The imagery still is in reference to shape and form.



                          That is the context. I am talking about the meaning of the word tselem. It refers to the shape, form. That is the imagery that is used to make the point.
                          No it doesn't. Here, it refers to their wicked deeds, which God will despise when He "awakens to judgment". He does not despise the wicked for what they look like, nor the physical shape they possess, He despises them for what they do. If this is talking about the "image" that they are in as a physical trait, then God must hate the image of God, since we are all made in His image.

                          7up: The same goes for Psalm 39:6, which is also a poetic reference to a shadow.



                          Again, that is the context, but you are avoiding what the actual word means everywhere in the Biblical text.
                          No I am not. How can one "walk in a vain physical copy of God"? You are trying to play a bait and switch game here, and it is failing.

                          This is what you are attempting to do with the Psalmist Bill. If someone says, "that is a web of lies". You are attempting to pretend that the poet does not want to bring the visual imagery of a "web" into the mind of the reader.
                          Sorry, no. The writer wants to highlight the characteristics of a web, not the physical makeup of it.

                          That is nonsense. Of course the poet wants that imagery, otherwise he would not have use the word. We all know what a web is, and we know what it looks like.
                          And the "image of God" is used the same way. People know what an image is, and what one looks like. But, like with the "web of lies", it mimics the characteristics of the spider web metaphorically, not physically. The "tselem of God" is a metaphor.

                          It is simple: The word "image" when translated from the Hebrew tselem means "shape, resemblance, figure, shadow."
                          Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Lexicon says it also means semblance in a figurative manner.

                          7up: This is simple. God ordered them not to look around at the creations and then make physical representations of those creations in the forms of statues and images: "Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth."



                          It was still an image of a serpent.
                          But it healed with God's power and authority. Hence an image.

                          Where the Israelites were when this image was made, is called Zalmonah, which has this similar meaning of image, shadow, etc. The brass serpent itself became an "idol" and was later destroyed (see 2 Kings 18:4) because the Israelites wanted to worship it.
                          Because it housed God's authority.

                          There are images everywhere in our lives. That is not the issue. The problem arises when an image is turned into an idol which is worshiped instead of the living God.
                          This has nothing to do with God's command to make the serpent to house His healing authority. As I said, if it were merely the physical form He cared about, He would not have instructed them to build anything, would He? But since "image" refers to authority, He could tell them to build them because they would house HIS authority at HIS direction.

                          7up: So, instead of looking at the many concrete references of "images", which all refer to a physical shape/form and visual appearance, you Bill, have to try to run to the two poetic uses of the word tselem which are found in the Psalms.



                          Not even close. Your attempt of referring to these poetic references, which are the minority by the way, STILL fails. Just like "web" is actually referring to a physical object, it can be used poetically but STILL brings in the imagery of the actual physical object. Simple.
                          I've shown you on more than one occasion that the image of God is not us as a physical duplicate. Akkadian and Egyptian usage, when referring to the image of the gods NEVER claims that the image was a replica of what the god looked like.


                          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                          Marc Zvi Brettler, a Jewish Orthodox scholar, wrote:

                          “The word tzelem (image) elsewhere always refers to a physical representation. For example, the Book of Ezekiel uses tzelem when it refers to ‘men sculptured upon the walls, figures of Chaldeans drawn in vermilion’ (23:14) or when it accuses Israel of fornicating with ‘phallic images (16:17). The word often refers to idols (e.g., Num. 33:52; Ezek. 7:20; Amos 5:26; 2 Chron. 23:17). It always signifies a concrete entity rather than an abstract one. This is not surprising since the Bible (in contrast to most medieval philosophical traditions, both Jewish and Christian) often depicts God in corporeal terms, as in Exodus 24:10: ‘and they saw the God of Israel: under His feet…’”
                          Marc Zvi Brettler; How to Read the Bible, 43-44.



                          You refer to Brettler's opinion about the origin of the text.
                          Of course I do.

                          We are talking about what the text means, more specifically, what the text originally meant. Nice try though.
                          I've trod that path already. You just ignored it and handwaved it away



                          So, the view here is that God had to deceive people into believing that God had arms, hands, etc. ... but God really doesn't. Good one.
                          No. It was not deception in the least bit. It gave them a frame of reference with which to relate.



                          There is no "merely" about it. Trust me that when Christ returns in all of his power and glory, it will not be "merely".
                          "Merely" was used to describe the difference between God's full glory and the semblance of it.

                          7up: The word tselem or “image” referred to the creation of man in God’s visual appearance, the language itself was formulaic in the ancient Near East. For example:

                          “In the myth of creating man and king, Belet-ili’s invitation to Ea (obv. 1. 8′) nibnīma ṣalam ṭiṭṭi ‘let us create an image of clay’ strikingly echoes God’s invitation (to whom? Gen 1:26) na‘aśeh ’ādām beṣalmēnû ‘Let us create a man in our image . . .’ This is an interesting combination of several ideas which appear separately in the biblical creation accounts, namely, the consultation with other gods as well as the use of ṣalam -both resembling Gen 1:26-27, and the creation of man from clay as in Gen 2:7. Subsequent verses mention calling the new creature “man” (obv. 28′ cf. Gen 5:2), and pinching off clay to form the man (obv. 14′), an idea found in Job 33:6 in identical language.” Victor Hurowitz, “Book Review of R. J. Clifford, Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and in the Bible” in Jewish Quarterly Review 87 (1997): 414. (https://www.lds.org/ensign/1994/09/t...steal?lang=eng ; http://lehislibrary.wordpress.com/20...-126-27-image/)
                          -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                          Hendrik Bosman stated:

                          The Akkadian cognate for tselem is salmu; a term often used to refer to the statues of kings and dignitaries, as well as the images of deities (Merrill 2003:442). There are also a few examples where the Akkadian king is called a salmu (‘Image’) of a deity – Enuma Elish 1:15-16 (van Leeuwen 1997:644).

                          The four thousand year old Egyptian Instruction of Merikare depicts humans as the earthly representatives of the gods with the pharaoh as representative of humanity described as the bearer of the image of the sun god (Lichtheim 1973-1980):
                          Well tended is mankind – god’s cattle
                          He made sky and earth for their sake,
                          He subdued the water monster,
                          He made breath for their noses to live.
                          They are his images, who came from his body,
                          He shines in the sky for their sake;

                          Therefore it seems clear that Israel was surrounded by cultures where the image of the divine was an indication of royalty, a symbol of the power and authority of the king (Van Leeuwen 1997:644).


                          7up: They (false idols) have no authority or power. There are all kinds of derogatory contexts for the term "images" in the Biblical text that attribute no power or authority to these shapes, forms, "images". Look at the list and you will see that many of them do not attribute power or authority at all to these "images" and simply call them abominable.
                          Totally irrelevant to how the worshippers of the tselem thought. To them, the image WAS their god, as they thought their god's power and authority rested in the tselem.


                          People may have pretended that these images and statues had more significance, but the Biblical text calls it for what it is. They were nothing more that physical forms and shapes fashioned by men out of stone, gold, wood, etc.
                          And? We are discussing the meaning of the word tselem, not whether or not the tselem actually had any real tangible power.


                          When Adam had a son "Seth" in his "image" and in his "likeness", all it is saying is that Adam's son looked like his father. It is another way of saying that the "apple didn't fall far from the tree". [/I]



                          When a couple has several children, some may resemble their mother more than the father. Sometimes they don't even look very much like either. It is not redundant to say that Seth looked just like his Father. When people say, "He looks just like his father." Do you turn to them and say, "what you just said is 'ridiculously redundant'"? Of course not. A simple and straight forward reading of the text is the best way.
                          Shift that goalpost! Before, you just claimed that it was a physical resemblance. Now you are trying to claim it means "the spitting image" because the wooden "shape" argument fails here.

                          Here is another non-LDS link of a pastor, who has to admit this straightforward interpretation: http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/...170/Tselem.htm
                          A non-Trinitarian Armstrongite?

                          7up: They looked alike and they are the same kind, which is a common theme found in the Genesis text, just like every seed and animal reproduces after its own kind (Gen 1:11). An apple tree reproduces more apple trees. Birds reproduce more birds, and men reproduce more men, after the same image and likeness. Here is the context:

                          Gen 5:1 "In the day of God's preparing man, in the likeness of God He hath made him; 2 a male and a female He created them, and He blesseth them, and calleth their name Man, in the day of their being created. 3 And Adam liveth an hundred and thirty years, and begetteth a son in his likeness, according to his image, and calleth his name Seth. 4 And the days of Adam after his begetting Seth are eight hundred years, and he begetteth sons and daughters.



                          People say these kinds of things all of the time. It is perfectly reasonable and you know it.
                          NETS.jpg
                          That's what
                          - She

                          Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                          - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                          I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                          - Stephen R. Donaldson

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                            Really, the conversation with Bill about the meaning of tselem is quite silly.
                            Because you are wrong.

                            What does the word mean?
                            The context usually explains it, but etymology and assimilation are taken into account

                            As the word usage (both inside and outside of the Bible) will show the meaning of the word צלם (tselem) to be literally a shadow, which is the outline or shape and visual representation of the original.
                            So, why were none of Adam's other children not said to be in Adam's image and likeness? Were they deformed? Perhaps they had more arms than Adam or Eve, or maybe they were centaurs. And since Adam was made in the image of God, and the other children weren't in Adam's image and likeness, then they could not be in God's image and likeness.

                            "The Hebrew term tselem derives from the Akkadian word tsalmu. According to Irene J. Winter, the word means, “consistently and only, image, which then may occure as a statue, or a stele, carved in relief, painted, drawn, or engraved.” A theologically oriented interpretation of tselem emphasizes only the spiritual quality. However, if God does not have a physical image, how can humans be created in his tselem, in the technical sense of the term? Winter's etymological definition repudiates outright the philosophical interpretations of the kind found in Jewish commentaries, to the effect that the term indicates primarily a spiritual representation of a certain being. Professor Simo Parpola has indicated to me that the term may , secondarily, refer to spiritual qualities as well. This does not remove, or displace, the more physical sense suggested by etymology. In the story of Gen. 1, God created humans in his tselem, as man and woman. This cannot but be a signal which, in this particular case, tells us that the word Tselem refers to something that is primarily physical." Rituals and Ritual Theory in Ancient Israel By Ithamar Gruenwald Pg 109
                            Gruenwald cites Irene Winter, but completely misses her later comment from the same article:

                            Source: http://www.amphilsoc.org/sites/default/files/proceedings/2Winter1530302.pdf


                            Yet, for all of the Assyrian rulers’ vocabulary suggesting verisimilitude, we do not really expect that the array of ninth-century BCE Assyrian royal sculptures, including Assurnasirpal’s almost identically depicted son, Shalmaneser III, represents accurate, realistic portrayals of the kings whose names the images bear.

                            As with Gudea, we are told in inscriptions of Assyrian kings that the gods, to quote two examples, “gave me a splendid figure and made my strength great” and “intervened to alter my appearance to lordly appearance and perfected my features, thereby making of me one fit to rule.” Unless one accepts actual divine intervention in the physical body, we must understand that some code is being referenced—less dependent
                            upon visual verification in the physiognomy of the intended referent than in the attributes.

                            © Copyright Original Source



                            So, as Winter acknowledges, the "salmu" was not created in the interest of duplicating appearance, it was for the idealized attributes of royalty, or the attributes to use her term. Gruenwald is wrong.


                            Contrary to these well researched and logical conclusions, Bill the Cat on this forum argues that tselem does not include the physical, but instead refers only to "authority". However, the Hebrew word "toqeph" (or any other word) is not being used in the scriptures we are discussing. Bill's assertion has no merit.

                            Mormons use the word as originally meant and understood in the text we have in the Bible. Then these biased theologians and anti-Mormons come in and criticize believers of the LDS faith for holding to "unBiblical" doctrines and teachings. Yet it is quite clear, that the opposite is true.

                            -7up
                            I think I've shown otherwise...
                            That's what
                            - She

                            Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                            - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                            I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                            - Stephen R. Donaldson

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              What does the Hebrew mean when someone in the Bible said something had the "likeness of a man"? Do they mean that it sounded, acted, thought, smelled like a man? NO! It means that it looked like a man.

                              The Jews and the Christians had to attempt to change the interpretation of Genesis 1:26 when trying to integrate into Roman society and philosophy.
                              The argument fails on ground that the Bible also declares that Jesus was made to be in every respect like his brothers. (Hebrews 2:17)
                              1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                              .
                              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                              Scripture before Tradition:
                              but that won't prevent others from
                              taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                              of the right to call yourself Christian.

                              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                According to the Mormons, the non-existent star (at least no astronomers have found it) gives the sun its light. How any educated person can believe this is beyond me:

                                ""Is called in Egyptian Enish-go-on-dosh; this is one of the governing planets also, and is said by the Egyptians to be the Sun, and to borrow its light from Kolob through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash, which is the grand Key, or, in other words, the governing power, which governs fifteen other fixed planets or stars, as also Floeese or the Moon, the Earth and the Sun in their annual revolutions. This planet receives its power through the medium of Kli-flos-is-es, or Hah-ko-kau-beam, the stars represented by numbers 22 and 23, receiving light from the revolutions of Kolob." (Book of Abraham, Facsimile 2, Figure #5 explanation.)

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X