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

God Was Once a Mortal Sinner????

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

  • #31
    I'm going to get right to the point:

    LDS is atheism wrapped in polytheism inside Christianity.

    The polytheism is clear: In Greek mythology, Zeus turned into a mortal and had sex with the mortal Selene to produce a demigod Dionysus.

    But in LDS, God the Father condescended to be a mortal man to have literal sex with mortal Mary to produce the mortal body of a demigod Jesus.

    LDS one-ups Greek mythology: God the Father in a spirit body had literal sex with a mysterious Heavenly Mother to produce the spirit body of Jehovah, and mysteriously transferred the spirit body of Jehovah through sex with Mary into the mortal body of Jesus.

    And that's how Gods have been doing it since who knows when. But then again, they aren't really Gods as Christians view God:

    LDS: God the Father was once a man, and His God was once a man, with all roads inevitably leading back to evolution from matter, not by creation from any God:

    LDS: God is basically just a human evolved from matter who found a computer to program and arrange what already existed into various worlds so he could play God within them:

    Stopping at this point, most Mormons start to squirm when I ask about the Alpha God who started it all, and with good reason. There is no God as such in LDS, only eternal matter. That's why when you get down to that understanding, LDS is inherently atheist.

    Wrapped up like baby Jesus and presented to gullible people, it's everything we want: atheism, polytheism, we can be like gods too, there is no ultimate God! But it's still the message of Satan:

    Genesis 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

    Now here's a biblical view:

    LDS also acknowledges an intelligent energy by which spirit bodies then human bodies come to exist. I'll make it simple to say that the intelligent energy is Father God to start with, and He acts on creation by emanating power which is the Spirit, and instructions by which the Spirit will act on creation which is the Word of God. So for an analogy, God is one like I am one employer who may exert my influence (Spirit) on employees (creation) to give them instructions (Word), and my influence and instructions may take on different forms as they go out into my workforce, but we are all still one. We aren't actually different humans standing around in different places. It's still more about human perception of who I am, since what I say I want may take on a life of its own as its being accomplished to handle the finer details of things.

    That's Trinity in a nutshell. Now about Jesus specifically:

    God's promise of a Messiah to King David required that David always have a son on an everlasting throne. The promise could not be fulfilled after any gap in generations, so it required David's own son to be resurrected. I say it was the son who died for David's sin with Uriah, resurrected as Jesus dying for sins of everyone, resurrected into the womb of a virgin surrogate mother Mary, as a sign given to King Ahaz and the House of David that it would be a miraculous birth, much like the barren Sarah would have a miraculous birth.

    Resurrection is entirely biblical: we don't know where the dead are going to be resurrected in the end, straight from their graves or into a womb. If anyone has been scattered to sea or burned up in the Holocaust blown around Europe, God has the power to put them back together wherever He wants. Among many clues as to how Jesus was born to a virgin and who he really is: Isaiah 11:6 ...and a little child shall lead them.

    Additionally, that David's promise could be fulfilled biologically through Mary not only doesn't work prophetically, Mary's lineage is not even given in the Bible except for that she may be a Levite. She may be an Egyptian convert for all we know. Therefore the human body and nature of Jesus -- being capable of temptation and death -- likely came from David and Bathsheba, he was 100% mortal not a demigod, to start with.

    As to Jesus being God: many humans were filled with God's presence, let's use the human King David his father to illustrate. He had enough of God's presence to act like a god doing many incredible things. Yet he sinned, so we could say his cup was partly full. The cup of Jesus was completely full, not because he was a demigod, but because he was fully human resisting temptation and entirely obedient to the Father so that the presence of God, those instructions as the Word of God as well as the Spirit, was fully within him, making a human God to be the kind of Messiah promised to David that would rule an everlasting kingdom. Which is again is entirely biblical: if human kings, prophets, tabernacle builders, etc. can have some presence of God, then the human Messiah can have the full presence of God.

    So the message isn't about Gods turning into men and back into Gods, or endless Gods, or about Gods having the sexual times of their lives: it's about making the human Messiah equal to God so that he can effectively rule an everlasting kingdom, as promised to David.

    And that's what LDS seems to completely ignore.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by seven7up View Post
      The term "exalted" is used in reference to Jesus Christ in the New Testament ... so, as usual, you don't know what you are talking about.
      Yes I do, and you are dodging the implications yet again. Not that I am surprised though...

      For example: "For this reason also, God (the Father) highly exalted Him (Jesus Christ), and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,… (Phil 2:9-10)
      Who exalted the father? Who perfected Him? Who enthroned Him?

      Source: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=eng


      The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity. God Himself is an exalted man, perfected, enthroned, and supreme.

      © Copyright Original Source



      Clearly, your god is only a god by grace. He is not the supreme power. He is not God by nature. And that is the beauty of Trinitarianism. Jesus is both God by nature (His divine nature which was eternally possessed) and God by grace (His human nature which was granted by the Father).

      Clearly being "exalted" by God does not imply that Jesus was sinful. So, you are wrong again Bill.
      So, Jesus did not "take sin upon Himself" as a human being? Why would one who was god by grace already, since He earned it before creation, need to be re-exalted?


      I am suggesting that the kindgom and world in which we live in this Universe may be different than the kingdom and worlds elsewhere in the Universe. For example, it has been suggested that the Savior chose to work out his mortal sojourn on the most wicked of all worlds (See Moses 7:36).
      Capture1.JPG

      Or, this could be the major battle ground where the most noble and righteous have been placed with the most powerful opposition.
      2 Chronicles 20:15b ...For the battle is not yours, but God's



      True. The promise is for each exalted family to have spiritual children, however, we do not know if the world that they populate will be the same as this one. As illustrated above, each world may not have its very own "Christ". That was the point I was trying to get across in a previous post to you. Each kingdom is not necessarily the same as the one that we are familiar with here.
      Every world has had an Adam and an Eve, named so simply because the first man is always called Adam and the first woman, Eve. And the oldest son has always had the privilege of being ordained, appointed and called to be the heir of the family if he does not rebel against the Father, and he is the Savior of the family. Every world that has been created has been created upon the same principle. They may vary in their varieties, yet the eternity is one: it is one eternal round (Brigham Young - http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content...gs_On_Adam.pdf)

      "President Young said there never was any world created & peopled nor never would be but what would be redeemed by the shedding of the blood of the savior of that world." The Journal of Wilford Woodruff (http://user.xmission.com/~plporter/lds/ag3.htm)



      7up: Glory would go to Christ, and more glory is added to the Father at the same time.

      His name is the same name given to the Son.
      So, would that mean that the name given by the Father was the same one given by HIS Father? Meaning that there actually IS a god formed before the Father?

      They are "one" in that sense.
      Among others.

      Allow me to provide the quote from Joseph Smith again:

      "What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. I saw my Father work out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom I shall present it to my Father so that he obtains kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt his glory. And so Jesus treads in his tracks to inherit what God did before."
      This simply goes to show yet again that your "father" is only a god by grace, and is completely contingent on a god above him that he denied even existed. In your theology, never mentioning your father once you become a father yourself is somehow honoring him...

      7up: It isn't just one or the other. Posterity works that way.



      Let's take it down to a mortal level in order to help illustrate. Let's say that a man named Jared has a family, and he successfully has a career and a family. He has several children. One of his other children becomes equally successful and has a family and successful career as well. Does the family and success of the child take away from the family and success of the Father?
      If the child claims that they are the highest authority and that they answer to no one, then they are lying to their children. Or they have abandoned their father. Either way, it blows your theology up.

      Doesn't the Father gain satisfaction through his child and continuing posterity? Is that not glorious?
      No. Being ignored and cast aside as ineffectual is not glorious. Completely eliminating your father from any mention to your own children is disrespectful and unbecoming of a God.


      Isaiah 42:8 (NASB)
      8 “I am the Lord, that is My name;
      I will not give My glory to another,



      On this Earth where Christ provided the sacrifice, we have been taught that we are children of the Most High God, our Heavenly Father. I don't know how it works elsewhere, in other kindgdoms, other worlds, etc.
      "All worlds have their God, their Savior, their sin, their priesthood, and can choose which they like, but beginning man rejected the priesthood by assuming to be a law unto himself—all other things abide this law." (http://user.xmission.com/~plporter/lds/ag3.htm)


      Well, they aren't really "other gods". In the mind of LDS (and in reality), "God" is a plural noun.
      No it isn't. It CAN be, but not always. Just like our term "sheep"

      Heavenly Mother is included in the concept of "God". Yet we understand that there are "gods" who are "one" with God.
      That has nothing to do with you claiming that Jesus would be the Father in the next creation, but that we would help Him procreate spirit children.

      7up: keeping in mind that we are well into speculative discussion, and not concrete theology/doctrine, and no LDS really knows how it will work in eternity. ...



      The way the heavens and kingdoms are organized is very speculative. The nature of how exactly spiritual children are created is speculative. How things work on other worlds is speculative. The idea that God could have sinned in his mortal life is speculative.
      Translation: I know we are talking out of our rear ends, and when we look at how it would really work, we see that it is a giant steaming pile of crap, but if we just claim that it isn't revealed, we have an escape hatch.


      Correct. IF he were a reformed sinner, THEN He would be a "god by grace". However, the strongest indication is that the Father was a mortal in the same sense that Jesus was a mortal.
      If he was exalted by someone else, then he is a "god by grace" since it was someone else's grace that exalted him.


      Nevertheless, if the power of the atonement is true, would there be any way to tell the difference between a "god by grace" and a "God by nature"?
      Absolutely! Those by grace will only reflect the glory of He who is God by nature. And He who is God by nature will not share His glory with anyone else.


      That is because Jeff is suggesting in his opinion that being "free from all error and sin" MUST include having never sinned in the past, even though in the present that being is perfect, having been cleansed by the blood of the Lamb.
      You mean a DIFFERENT lamb than ours.

      But that is not necessarily the case. I agree with Jeff in that I think God the Father was Christ of a previous Universe, because that is how Joseph Smith presented it, but I don't absolutely think that this has to be the case.
      Brigham Young presented it differently.

      I have to be open to other possibilities because these questions have not been answered and I am a strong proponent of the power of Christ's atonement. I also have to believe that Jesus wasn't making impossible commands when he said, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Matt 5:48)
      It wasn't an absolute. It was a target to strive for.

      Let me ask you a simple question Bill. In your theology, for those who obtain Eternal Life, are they "free from all error and sin"? Or will they be bound in eternity by sins and past mistakes?
      They will be given new robes of righteousness, which is the righteousness of Christ. It is HIS glory and righteousness that are by nature. Ours are only us wearing His.
      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


      • #33
        Originally posted by JohnnyP View Post
        I'm going to get right to the point:

        LDS is atheism wrapped in polytheism inside Christianity.

        The polytheism is clear: In Greek mythology, Zeus turned into a mortal and had sex with the mortal Selene to produce a demigod Dionysus.

        But in LDS, God the Father condescended to be a mortal man to have literal sex with mortal Mary to produce the mortal body of a demigod Jesus.

        LDS one-ups Greek mythology: God the Father in a spirit body had literal sex with a mysterious Heavenly Mother to produce the spirit body of Jehovah, and mysteriously transferred the spirit body of Jehovah through sex with Mary into the mortal body of Jesus.

        And that's how Gods have been doing it since who knows when. But then again, they aren't really Gods as Christians view God:

        LDS: God the Father was once a man, and His God was once a man, with all roads inevitably leading back to evolution from matter, not by creation from any God:

        LDS: God is basically just a human evolved from matter who found a computer to program and arrange what already existed into various worlds so he could play God within them:

        Stopping at this point, most Mormons start to squirm when I ask about the Alpha God who started it all, and with good reason. There is no God as such in LDS, only eternal matter. That's why when you get down to that understanding, LDS is inherently atheist.

        Wrapped up like baby Jesus and presented to gullible people, it's everything we want: atheism, polytheism, we can be like gods too, there is no ultimate God! But it's still the message of Satan:

        Genesis 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

        Now here's a biblical view:

        LDS also acknowledges an intelligent energy by which spirit bodies then human bodies come to exist. I'll make it simple to say that the intelligent energy is Father God to start with, and He acts on creation by emanating power which is the Spirit, and instructions by which the Spirit will act on creation which is the Word of God. So for an analogy, God is one like I am one employer who may exert my influence (Spirit) on employees (creation) to give them instructions (Word), and my influence and instructions may take on different forms as they go out into my workforce, but we are all still one. We aren't actually different humans standing around in different places. It's still more about human perception of who I am, since what I say I want may take on a life of its own as its being accomplished to handle the finer details of things.

        That's Trinity in a nutshell. Now about Jesus specifically:

        God's promise of a Messiah to King David required that David always have a son on an everlasting throne. The promise could not be fulfilled after any gap in generations, so it required David's own son to be resurrected. I say it was the son who died for David's sin with Uriah, resurrected as Jesus dying for sins of everyone, resurrected into the womb of a virgin surrogate mother Mary, as a sign given to King Ahaz and the House of David that it would be a miraculous birth, much like the barren Sarah would have a miraculous birth.

        Resurrection is entirely biblical: we don't know where the dead are going to be resurrected in the end, straight from their graves or into a womb. If anyone has been scattered to sea or burned up in the Holocaust blown around Europe, God has the power to put them back together wherever He wants. Among many clues as to how Jesus was born to a virgin and who he really is: Isaiah 11:6 ...and a little child shall lead them.

        Additionally, that David's promise could be fulfilled biologically through Mary not only doesn't work prophetically, Mary's lineage is not even given in the Bible except for that she may be a Levite. She may be an Egyptian convert for all we know. Therefore the human body and nature of Jesus -- being capable of temptation and death -- likely came from David and Bathsheba, he was 100% mortal not a demigod, to start with.

        As to Jesus being God: many humans were filled with God's presence, let's use the human King David his father to illustrate. He had enough of God's presence to act like a god doing many incredible things. Yet he sinned, so we could say his cup was partly full. The cup of Jesus was completely full, not because he was a demigod, but because he was fully human resisting temptation and entirely obedient to the Father so that the presence of God, those instructions as the Word of God as well as the Spirit, was fully within him, making a human God to be the kind of Messiah promised to David that would rule an everlasting kingdom. Which is again is entirely biblical: if human kings, prophets, tabernacle builders, etc. can have some presence of God, then the human Messiah can have the full presence of God.

        So the message isn't about Gods turning into men and back into Gods, or endless Gods, or about Gods having the sexual times of their lives: it's about making the human Messiah equal to God so that he can effectively rule an everlasting kingdom, as promised to David.

        And that's what LDS seems to completely ignore.
        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


        • #34
          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
          I suspect that refers to the second part of my post, about where the flesh and human nature of Jesus came from, I get that reaction often.

          What you say here is kind of like the LDS position of God the Father turning into a man, of course they believe He did it to have sex with Mary:

          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
          Jesus is both God by nature (His divine nature which was eternally possessed) and God by grace (His human nature which was granted by the Father).
          Same kind of view, the Word of God turned into a man, like Zeus turning into a mortal. Instead of the more biblical position that Jesus was fully human Son of David who had the fullness of the Word of God within him, thus making him God.

          Aside from just guessing that one of the Matthew/Luke lineages are for Mary, the kingdom can't come from a woman anyway, or by adoption from Joseph, and there can't be any lapse between generations from king to king: David would always have a man on the throne, and that man will proceed from his own body:
          2 Chronicles 7:18 Then will I stablish the throne of thy kingdom, according as I have covenanted with David thy father, saying, There shall not fail thee a man to be ruler in Israel.

          2 Samuel 7:12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.

          It's not really unbiblical to say the human Jesus was created wholly of the flesh of Mary, as Eve was from Adam. But that wouldn't fulfill the Messianic promise. To say that Jesus was resurrected from one of David's own sons, the one who had the birthright before Solomon anyway, is not only not unbiblical, it's the only way the Messianic promise could be fulfilled.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
            It looks like Johnny understands Mormonism almost as much as he does Christianity.


            Comment


            • #36
              Once people depart from points of an argument and start focusing on me it's an ad hom, they can't muster anything more about the actual topic. I win, sorry.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by JohnnyP View Post
                Once people depart from points of an argument and start focusing on me it's an ad hom, they can't muster anything more about the actual topic. I win, sorry.
                Well, when you are so far off the mark that we need binoculars to see what you hit, what kind of response do you expect? Oh, and since I can muster more about the topic, well, sorry, you don't win.

                Anyway, back to your "argument". You say that Jesus was David's son through Bathsheba, and then you say it's merely a resurrection. First off, in your own post you admit that said son was 100% mortal, which means he was not God, which Jesus was from the beginning[1]. Second, that's not resurrection, that's reincarnation, which is clearly not Biblical[2].

                Then you misunderstand the kinds of promises given by God, they are often conditional. Especially those made to kings. This kind of thing didn't need to be made explicit back then, the Israelites were what was known as a "high context society", whereas we are a "low context society". They would know these things, and were expected to know them. Today, we expect every little detail spelled out for us.

                Source: Tektonics.org

                A "prophet" in the Bible meant more than simply "a predictor of the future". A prophet was also a messenger and an exhorter. His words were never set in stone. A key verse for this is Jer. 18:7-10 --
                If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.

                © Copyright Original Source



                Source.

                For more on "high context society" there is a bit in the following link.

                http://www.tektonics.org/doherty/doherty20lb.php#noneed

                [1]Two verses dispel the idea that Jesus was David's son, since in your own version he was 100% mortal, thus not prexisting his birth to Bathsheba.

                Source: John

                John 1 New International Version (NIV)

                The Word Became Flesh
                1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

                © Copyright Original Source



                Source: John

                John 8:58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

                © Copyright Original Source



                2. Reincarnation doesn't exist, we are all judged after we die, and are immediately taken to where we are supposed to go.

                Source: Hebrews

                Hebrews 9:27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,

                © Copyright Original Source



                Source: Luke

                Luke 23:43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

                © Copyright Original Source



                Source: 2 Corinthians 5

                8 We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord. 9 So we make it our goal to please him, whether we are at home in the body or away from it. 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.

                © Copyright Original Source



                It's also absurd to think that God would resurrect the dead in women's wombs, when He has previously done this.

                Source: Ezekiel 37

                4 Then he said to me, “Prophesy to these bones and say to them, ‘Dry bones, hear the word of the Lord! 5 This is what the Sovereign Lord says to these bones: I will make breath[a] enter you, and you will come to life. 6 I will attach tendons to you and make flesh come upon you and cover you with skin; I will put breath in you, and you will come to life. Then you will know that I am the Lord.’”

                7 So I prophesied as I was commanded. And as I was prophesying, there was a noise, a rattling sound, and the bones came together, bone to bone. 8 I looked, and tendons and flesh appeared on them and skin covered them, but there was no breath in them.

                9 Then he said to me, “Prophesy to the breath; prophesy, son of man, and say to it, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Come, breath, from the four winds and breathe into these slain, that they may live.’” 10 So I prophesied as he commanded me, and breath entered them; they came to life and stood up on their feet—a vast army.

                11 Then he said to me: “Son of man, these bones are the people of Israel. They say, ‘Our bones are dried up and our hope is gone; we are cut off.’ 12 Therefore prophesy and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: My people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel. 13 Then you, my people, will know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves and bring you up from them. 14 I will put my Spirit in you and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that I the Lord have spoken, and I have done it, declares the Lord.’”

                © Copyright Original Source

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                  Well, when you are so far off the mark that we need binoculars to see what you hit, what kind of response do you expect? Oh, and since I can muster more about the topic, well, sorry, you don't win.
                  I was just trying to provoke an actual discussion consisting of more than snarky comments and smilies.

                  Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                  Anyway, back to your "argument". You say that Jesus was David's son through Bathsheba, and then you say it's merely a resurrection. First off, in your own post you admit that said son was 100% mortal, which means he was not God, which Jesus was from the beginning[1].
                  Most Christians say that Jesus was 100% fully mortal don't they? And of course I say Jesus was 100% fully God as well, I'll get into that down the post.
                  Precisely because he was the god-man, fully God and fully man. -Tektonics

                  Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary being fully human and fully God. -Tweb FAQ

                  Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                  Second, that's not resurrection, that's reincarnation, which is clearly not Biblical[2].
                  No, there's a difference: reincarnation is same spirit made to live again in different flesh: could be a different human, animal, or insect body, depending on the belief.

                  While resurrection is the same spirit made to live again in the same flesh:

                  a. Resurrected same spirit/body in a womb.
                  b. Resurrected same spirit/body in a cave.

                  In all cases, the human is resurrected to be the same human into the material world, the exact location of which may vary: whether it's into a cave, into the ocean, into a womb, or up in a tree.

                  For example if a baby died in the womb right before the time of the First Resurrection (Revelation 20:5), God could resurrect the baby right there in the womb along with its mother. Or He could resurrect the baby somewhere else, like onto Mount Zion. If you died at sea and a whale swallowed you, would God have to resurrect you inside of the whale, or could He raise you up on dry land? Either.

                  Since I assume you're not going to argue that an omnipotent God can't resurrect a baby into a womb, the only question left is why would He, and I've explained that.

                  Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                  Then you misunderstand the kinds of promises given by God, they are often conditional. Especially those made to kings. This kind of thing didn't need to be made explicit back then, the Israelites were what was known as a "high context society", whereas we are a "low context society". They would know these things, and were expected to know them. Today, we expect every little detail spelled out for us.

                  Source: Tektonics.org

                  A "prophet" in the Bible meant more than simply "a predictor of the future". A prophet was also a messenger and an exhorter. His words were never set in stone. A key verse for this is Jer. 18:7-10 --
                  If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  Source.

                  For more on "high context society" there is a bit in the following link.

                  http://www.tektonics.org/doherty/doherty20lb.php#noneed
                  Solomon's promise was conditional, David's was not, David retained it even after he died. Solomon lost his promise after he followed other gods. I'm unclear as to how your comments and cites address this. It's not like we get to the NT and there's this Messiah popping in from nowhere. There's a biblical basis for who he is and how he comes from David.
                  2 Chronicles 7:17-20 And as for thee, if thou wilt walk before me, as David thy father walked, and do according to all that I have commanded thee, and shalt observe my statutes and my judgments; Then will I stablish the throne of thy kingdom, according as I have covenanted with David thy father, saying, There shall not fail thee a man to be ruler in Israel. But if ye turn away, and forsake my statutes and my commandments, which I have set before you, and shall go and serve other gods, and worship them; Then will I pluck them up by the roots out of my land which I have given them; and this house, which I have sanctified for my name, will I cast out of my sight, and will make it to be a proverb and a byword among all nations.

                  Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                  [1]Two verses dispel the idea that Jesus was David's son, since in your own version he was 100% mortal, thus not prexisting his birth to Bathsheba.
                  As said I suppose you misunderstood what I meant by 100% mortal. The very first thing we're told in the NT is that Jesus is the Son of David so nothing dispels that:
                  Matthew 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

                  Where most Christians and I disagree is that they believe Jesus is mysteriously Son of David based on lineages that don't ever clearly state how he has David's blood: it's basically like, let's flip a coin and pin one on Mary. But because that's the tradition, they actually think it's more solid than my belief that neither of those lineages matter: we actually have to go straight to David to get the Messianic promise for Jesus anyway since no one else but David had it after Solomon lost it, as I've shown.
                  1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

                  On a related note, it's most likely the two lineages are for Joseph the Carpenter who acted as his father at birth, and Joseph of Arimathea who acted as his father at death, providing his own family tomb and handling burial duties as the eldest next-of-kin was supposed to do among Jews.

                  Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                  Source: John

                  John 1 New International Version (NIV)

                  The Word Became Flesh
                  1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  Source: John

                  John 8:58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

                  © Copyright Original Source

                  Now you're talking about the Word of God, I think we agree this person of God always existed, and that Jesus is also 100% God.

                  But again Jesus was also 100% mortal, a man with flesh and spirit that could be tempted in all ways as we are (Hebrews 4:1).

                  For some reason it's difficult for Christians and others to grasp the simple idea that Jesus was 100% human with 100% presence of God -- as other men like David were filled with God but not to the fullest extent Jesus is: a human Jesus with human flesh and human spirit and human nature, with the Word of God dwelling fully within him.

                  Instead there's usually an odd spin on it like, the Father created a human nature in Heaven and gave it to the Word of God who then went down to live in an empty spiritless body created by parthenogenesis or something. Or, the Word of God turned into flesh in Heaven that was mysteriously manufactured from Mary somehow and then went down into Mary's womb.

                  And that's supposed to sound less crazy and more biblical and on the mark than the way I explained it.

                  Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                  2. Reincarnation doesn't exist...
                  Agree, as I said what I described is resurrection not reincarnation anyway.

                  Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                  2. ...we are all judged after we die, and are immediately taken to where we are supposed to go.

                  Source: Hebrews

                  Hebrews 9:27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  Source: Luke

                  Luke 23:43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

                  © Copyright Original Source

                  Disagree, Lazarus for one. There's a post about it HERE if you want to see more about my views on that.

                  Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                  It's also absurd to think that God would resurrect the dead in women's wombs, when He has previously done this.

                  Source: Ezekiel 37

                  4 Then he said to me, “Prophesy to these bones and say to them, ‘Dry bones, hear the word of the Lord! 5 This is what the Sovereign Lord says to these bones: I will make breath[a] enter you, and you will come to life. 6 I will attach tendons to you and make flesh come upon you and cover you with skin; I will put breath in you, and you will come to life. Then you will know that I am the Lord.’”

                  7 So I prophesied as I was commanded. And as I was prophesying, there was a noise, a rattling sound, and the bones came together, bone to bone. 8 I looked, and tendons and flesh appeared on them and skin covered them, but there was no breath in them.

                  9 Then he said to me, “Prophesy to the breath; prophesy, son of man, and say to it, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Come, breath, from the four winds and breathe into these slain, that they may live.’” 10 So I prophesied as he commanded me, and breath entered them; they came to life and stood up on their feet—a vast army.

                  11 Then he said to me: “Son of man, these bones are the people of Israel. They say, ‘Our bones are dried up and our hope is gone; we are cut off.’ 12 Therefore prophesy and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: My people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel. 13 Then you, my people, will know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves and bring you up from them. 14 I will put my Spirit in you and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that I the Lord have spoken, and I have done it, declares the Lord.’”

                  © Copyright Original Source

                  If I was an atheist I'd ask you why you think being resurrected in a valley or made from the rib of Adam or the simplistic understanding that God turned into a man and went to live in Mary's womb sounds any less absurd than believing resurrection into a womb, which is basically just IVF along with biblical resurrection.

                  But to the point, I don't see a need for anyone else to be resurrected in a womb, I'm only suggesting Jesus was.

                  Most Christians can't really explain why Jesus had to be born to a virgin, which as explained would have been done for reasons of the Messianic promise, as well as to be a sign, and for prophetic symbolism of a righteous Kingdom of Jesus born out of virgin Israel vs. unrighteous Kingdom of Solomon born out of harlot Israel.

                  LDS has it even more confounded as I've discussed, which was the reason I brought it up in the first place.




                  I brought this up before, what do you think it means. Is the little child is Jesus? The baby Jesus didn't lead any of these. Jesus was a man when he died to go be ruler in Heaven. So what is it referring to?
                  Isaiah 11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

                  In the Tanach/OT, what Son of David's was significantly discussed as being a little child who did what Jesus did, namely, dying for sins of others?
                  2 Samuel 12:13-14 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by JohnnyP View Post
                    I was just trying to provoke an actual discussion consisting of more than snarky comments and smilies.
                    Like I said, with what you stated earlier what did you expect?

                    Most Christians say that Jesus was 100% fully mortal don't they? And of course I say Jesus was 100% fully God as well, I'll get into that down the post.
                    Yeah, but not living as someone else at some other time, who in no way had any recognition of being divine.



                    No, there's a difference: reincarnation is same spirit made to live again in different flesh: could be a different human, animal, or insect body, depending on the belief.

                    While resurrection is the same spirit made to live again in the same flesh:

                    a. Resurrected same spirit/body in a womb.
                    b. Resurrected same spirit/body in a cave.

                    In all cases, the human is resurrected to be the same human into the material world, the exact location of which may vary: whether it's into a cave, into the ocean, into a womb, or up in a tree.

                    For example if a baby died in the womb right before the time of the First Resurrection (Revelation 20:5), God could resurrect the baby right there in the womb along with its mother. Or He could resurrect the baby somewhere else, like onto Mount Zion. If you died at sea and a whale swallowed you, would God have to resurrect you inside of the whale, or could He raise you up on dry land? Either.

                    Since I assume you're not going to argue that an omnipotent God can't resurrect a baby into a womb, the only question left is why would He, and I've explained that.
                    No, it's still a different body entirely. Therefore it's reincarnation. You have the child going through the stages of conception to birth twice, and again, there's no need for your speculation anyway. I'll get to that in a minute.

                    Solomon's promise was conditional, David's was not, David retained it even after he died. Solomon lost his promise after he followed other gods. I'm unclear as to how your comments and cites address this. It's not like we get to the NT and there's this Messiah popping in from nowhere. There's a biblical basis for who he is and how he comes from David.
                    Why exactly do you get to decide that that part of the promise was unconditional? Being a "Son of David" only means a descendant, it doesn't specify which line of David. Also, the promise you are trying to use to push your nonsense was to go through Solomon, or did you not read the whole of 2 Samuel 7?

                    Source: 2 Samuel 7

                    12 When your days are over and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, your own flesh and blood, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with a rod wielded by men, with floggings inflicted by human hands. 15 But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16 Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me[b]; your throne will be established forever.’”

                    17 Nathan reported to David all the words of this entire revelation

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    Given what happened with Solomon, and what happened to David's line through him, yeah, this was a conditional promise too, at least some of it anyway.



                    As said I suppose you misunderstood what I meant by 100% mortal. The very first thing we're told in the NT is that Jesus is the Son of David so nothing dispels that:

                    That's the first thing, how? If you agree with Markan Priority then the first thing we are told is that Jesus is the Son of God. Also, it's the manner in which you think that Jesus is David's son that is dispelled.

                    Where most Christians and I disagree is that they believe Jesus is mysteriously Son of David based on lineages that don't ever clearly state how he has David's blood: it's basically like, let's flip a coin and pin one on Mary. But because that's the tradition, they actually think it's more solid than my belief that neither of those lineages matter: we actually have to go straight to David to get the Messianic promise for Jesus anyway since no one else but David had it after Solomon lost it, as I've shown.

                    That's a blatant misuse of 1 Timothy, it's not talking about the genealogies given in Scripture, but something else entirely. In fact, without genealogies the Messianic prophecies couldn't make sense. http://www.apologeticspress.org/apco...6&article=2430

                    Your own citation of Matthew makes it clear that Jesus was in the same way a "Son of Abraham" as He was a "Son of David". Mary's involvement is important because of the promise made to Eve about the "seed of the woman", which is where the need for the virgin birth actually comes in.

                    Then your own citation of the promise to David goes through the line of Solomon, which again, dispels the notion of Jesus being the result of David, and Bathsheba's affair.

                    On a related note, it's most likely the two lineages are for Joseph the Carpenter who acted as his father at birth, and Joseph of Arimathea who acted as his father at death, providing his own family tomb and handling burial duties as the eldest next-of-kin was supposed to do among Jews.
                    Now you're just pulling stuff out of your rear. That's not how Biblical genealogies work at all. Joseph would be added to Mary's lineage legally if her father had no sons. For more on the genealogies given, and how they work, see here.

                    Now you're talking about the Word of God, I think we agree this person of God always existed, and that Jesus is also 100% God.

                    But again Jesus was also 100% mortal, a man with flesh and spirit that could be tempted in all ways as we are (Hebrews 4:1).
                    Jesus being fully human doesn't negate that He was the Word of God, who was the active agent in creating the universe, and was also seen as the "Angel of the Lord" in other OT texts.

                    For some reason it's difficult for Christians and others to grasp the simple idea that Jesus was 100% human with 100% presence of God -- as other men like David were filled with God but not to the fullest extent Jesus is: a human Jesus with human flesh and human spirit and human nature, with the Word of God dwelling fully within him.
                    It's not about being "filled with the Spirit" which is something entirely different, but about Jesus' ontology. Jesus is God by nature. I think you are picking up some similar beliefs to the Mormons. If I'm reading this right you have Jesus being made into God, instead of being God.

                    Instead there's usually an odd spin on it like, the Father created a human nature in Heaven and gave it to the Word of God who then went down to live in an empty spiritless body created by parthenogenesis or something. Or, the Word of God turned into flesh in Heaven that was mysteriously manufactured from Mary somehow and then went down into Mary's womb.
                    Ever heard of Jewish "Wisdom Theology"? Here's a bit on how Jews as early as Philo saw God.

                    Source: Tektonics.org

                    This concept, Young continues, did not challenge God's "ultimate originality and sovereignty" at all. Hence, the idea of Christianity identifying an actual person in such a way is not problematic for monotheism in any sense. Nor is a trinitarian concept entirely foreign to Judaism. O'Neill [JCO.WD, 94] records the words of the Jewish historian Philo, a contemporary of Jesus, who laid out this exposition upon the three men who came to visit Abraham in Genesis 18:2, and were presumed to be divine figures:

                    ...the one in the middle is the Father of the Universe, who in the sacred scriptures is called by his proper name, I am that I am; and the beings on each side are those most ancient powers which are always close to the living God, one of which is called his creative power, and the other his royal power.
                    No one would question that Philo was a Jewish monotheist; yet here we have an exposition perfectly compatible with the Trinity: the Father, The Creative Power (the Son, or the Word), and the Royal Power (the Holy Spirit).

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    Source.

                    And that's supposed to sound less crazy and more biblical and on the mark than the way I explained it.
                    Given how the OT, Intertestamental literature, and the NT talk about Christ, yeah, it's closer than how you explained it.

                    Agree, as I said what I described is resurrection not reincarnation anyway.
                    But your description is a kind of reincarnation, your version has one person living two totally distinct lives with two totally distinct bodies.

                    Disagree, Lazarus for one. There's a post about it HERE if you want to see more about my views on that.
                    Lazarus was resuscitated, which in a sense is no different than someone being brought back by CPR. God knows when a person isn't going to be revived like that, and like the thief on the cross they will be going to their destination that day.

                    If I was an atheist I'd ask you why you think being resurrected in a valley or made from the rib of Adam or the simplistic understanding that God turned into a man and went to live in Mary's womb sounds any less absurd than believing resurrection into a womb, which is basically just IVF along with biblical resurrection.
                    Because it's not a "resurrection", but a form of reincarnation, and it doesn't match up to what God has done Biblically. So no, it's not "just IVF along with biblical resurrection", it's something entirely unbiblical.

                    But to the point, I don't see a need for anyone else to be resurrected in a womb, I'm only suggesting Jesus was.
                    Yeah, and backing it up with imagination, and a misunderstanding of Scripture.

                    Most Christians can't really explain why Jesus had to be born to a virgin, which as explained would have been done for reasons of the Messianic promise, as well as to be a sign, and for prophetic symbolism of a righteous Kingdom of Jesus born out of virgin Israel vs. unrighteous Kingdom of Solomon born out of harlot Israel.
                    I'd say wrong on all counts. You obviously haven't looked hard for a reason for the virgin birth. There are several answers. 1 the Messianic promise to Eve, and 2 the need for Jesus to be free of original sin. I think there are others, but I can't think of them off hand. I find that this is a good article on the topic.

                    LDS has it even more confounded as I've discussed, which was the reason I brought it up in the first place.


                    I'll agree with you that they are even more confused. That makes what, 1 thing so far.

                    I brought this up before, what do you think it means. Is the little child is Jesus? The baby Jesus didn't lead any of these. Jesus was a man when he died to go be ruler in Heaven. So what is it referring to?
                    That's an eschatological prophecy, and it does not say that the "Branch of Jesse" is the child who is leading the animals. In fact, this verse points back to Eden and how God created both man and animal vegetarian originally. It shows how even children will be capable of fulfilling the mandate of "subduing the earth".

                    Source: Maclaren's Expositions

                    We pass from the picture of the character and rule of the King over men to that fair vision of Paradise regained, which celebrates the universal restoration of peace between man and the animals. The picture is not to be taken as a mere allegory, as if ‘lions’ and ‘wolves’ and ‘snakes’ meant bad men; but it falls into line with other hints in Scripture, which trace the hostility between man and the lower creatures to sin, and shadow a future when ‘the beasts of the field shall be at peace with thee.’ The psalm which sings of man’s dominion over the creatures is to be one day fulfilled; and the Epistle to the Hebrews teaches that it is already fulfilled in Christ, who will raise His brethren, for whom He tasted death, to partake in His dominion.

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    Source.

                    In the Tanach/OT, what Son of David's was significantly discussed as being a little child who did what Jesus did, namely, dying for sins of others?
                    You're taking one thing which you think has significance, and letting it override other things in what they mean. You can't see the forest because you are concentrated on a tree.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                      Yeah, but not living as someone else at some other time, who in no way had any recognition of being divine.
                      He would not be living as someone else, any more than you will be living as someone else if you are resurrected 1000 years from now. You would be living under different circumstances, not different spirit and flesh.

                      As for being divine, we aren't told much about David's child, except for that he died for David's sins.

                      Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                      No, it's still a different body entirely. Therefore it's reincarnation. You have the child going through the stages of conception to birth twice, and again, there's no need for your speculation anyway. I'll get to that in a minute.
                      What conception exactly? Do you believe God physically got Mary pregnant, like LDS believe? That's more like being a demigod, rather than fully human with God fully dwelling with the human.

                      Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                      Why exactly do you get to decide that that part of the promise was unconditional? Being a "Son of David" only means a descendant, it doesn't specify which line of David. Also, the promise you are trying to use to push your nonsense was to go through Solomon, or did you not read the whole of 2 Samuel 7?

                      Source: 2 Samuel 7

                      12 When your days are over and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, your own flesh and blood, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with a rod wielded by men, with floggings inflicted by human hands. 15 But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16 Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me[b]; your throne will be established forever.’”

                      17 Nathan reported to David all the words of this entire revelation

                      © Copyright Original Source



                      Given what happened with Solomon, and what happened to David's line through him, yeah, this was a conditional promise too, at least some of it anyway.
                      You are assuming that the promise was about Solomon to start with: he built a Temple and had a throne, but neither were established forever. While Jesus has a Temple and throne that lasts forever as seen in Revelation. I'll repost, Solomon had this condition too:
                      2 Chronicles 7:17-20 And as for thee, if thou wilt walk before me, as David thy father walked, and do according to all that I have commanded thee, and shalt observe my statutes and my judgments; Then will I stablish the throne of thy kingdom, according as I have covenanted with David thy father, saying, There shall not fail thee a man to be ruler in Israel. But if ye turn away, and forsake my statutes and my commandments, which I have set before you, and shall go and serve other gods, and worship them; Then will I pluck them up by the roots out of my land which I have given them; and this house, which I have sanctified for my name, will I cast out of my sight, and will make it to be a proverb and a byword among all nations.

                      You're still dismissing that David was promised to always have a son on an everlasting throne, which was not fulfilled by Solomon, all that ended first when the kingdom divided and finally when Babylon destroyed it.

                      Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post

                      That's the first thing, how? If you agree with Markan Priority then the first thing we are told is that Jesus is the Son of God. Also, it's the manner in which you think that Jesus is David's son that is dispelled.
                      In my Bible this is the first thing in the NT:
                      Matthew 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

                      Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post

                      That's a blatant misuse of 1 Timothy, it's not talking about the genealogies given in Scripture, but something else entirely.
                      From your link:
                      Just as the Ephesians were not to “give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification” (1 Timothy 1:3-4), Titus was to avoid “various ‘foolish’ or senseless inquiries,” including “speculations about the OT genealogies,” that “resulted in sharp dissensions and open quarrels” (Hiebert, 2:447, emp. added). -Apologetics Press

                      Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                      In fact, without genealogies the Messianic prophecies couldn't make sense. http://www.apologeticspress.org/apco...6&article=2430
                      The NT genealogies still don't give them any sense. Whereas from David to Jesus the Son of David, that's self-explanatory.

                      Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                      Your own citation of Matthew makes it clear that Jesus was in the same way a "Son of Abraham" as He was a "Son of David".
                      The purpose of "Son of David, Son of Abraham" isn't to imply how many or few generations lie in between each, it's to highlight that Abraham's promise was passed from David to Jesus.

                      Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                      Mary's involvement is important because of the promise made to Eve about the "seed of the woman", which is where the need for the virgin birth actually comes in.
                      It's not really about a virgin birth, unless you want to argue that a Serpent will also have a virgin birth to produce an evil "Jesus." Maybe that's where those pesky Reptilians come from.

                      It's talking about the seed of Eve symbolic of Jews/Israel with Jesus as Messiah, and seed of the Serpent symbolic of Gentiles/Beast, as we see similar wording here:
                      Jeremiah 31:27 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man, and with the seed of beast. (Romans 11 Wild Gentile/Natural Jewish Olive)

                      Daniel 2:43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. (Revelation 17, Harlot Jerusalem/Gentile Beast)

                      Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                      Then your own citation of the promise to David goes through the line of Solomon, which again, dispels the notion of Jesus being the result of David, and Bathsheba's affair.
                      It stops with Solomon and reverts back to David. Don't you ever wonder why the NT never says that Jesus is the Son of Solomon, or that he gets his throne from Solomon, it's always about David?
                      Luke 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

                      Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                      Now you're just pulling stuff out of your rear. That's not how Biblical genealogies work at all. Joseph would be added to Mary's lineage legally if her father had no sons. For more on the genealogies given, and how they work, see here.
                      Yeah that whole article is a good example of paying heed to fables and endless genealogies which minister questions. Problem is you can't establish that either lineage is for Mary in the first place! It's assumed first, then comes the wild speculation about it, ignoring problems like the curse on Jeconiah: your article says that it doesn't use the big "again/forever" word, but it's used similarly for God's promise to Noah not to destroy the earth by flood again.

                      But anyway, we already know that there are two Josephs:

                      a. Joseph the Carpenter acting as the father of Jesus in the beginning of his life.
                      b. Joseph of Arimathea acting as his father providing the family tomb, as was custom that the eldest next-of-kin handle burial.

                      So the most reasonable conclusion is that those lineages are for them acting as fathers to Jesus. It's not reasonable to insert Mary in there just because we feel like it.

                      Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                      Jesus being fully human doesn't negate that He was the Word of God, who was the active agent in creating the universe, and was also seen as the "Angel of the Lord" in other OT texts.
                      Agreed.

                      Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                      It's not about being "filled with the Spirit" which is something entirely different, but about Jesus' ontology. Jesus is God by nature. I think you are picking up some similar beliefs to the Mormons. If I'm reading this right you have Jesus being made into God, instead of being God.
                      No, actually the idea that God turned into a man and came down from Heaven is like Mormon and Greek mythologies. The Bible gives evidence of nothing more than humans being filled with God, some more than others. If you agree that Jesus is fully human, how can you say that the fully human Jesus wasn't made fully God? His human nature and body from the line of David came into existence at some point in time, then the eternally-existing God was made flesh by dwelling in that body, correct?

                      Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                      Ever heard of Jewish "Wisdom Theology"? Here's a bit on how Jews as early as Philo saw God.

                      Source: Tektonics.org

                      This concept, Young continues, did not challenge God's "ultimate originality and sovereignty" at all. Hence, the idea of Christianity identifying an actual person in such a way is not problematic for monotheism in any sense. Nor is a trinitarian concept entirely foreign to Judaism. O'Neill [JCO.WD, 94] records the words of the Jewish historian Philo, a contemporary of Jesus, who laid out this exposition upon the three men who came to visit Abraham in Genesis 18:2, and were presumed to be divine figures:

                      ...the one in the middle is the Father of the Universe, who in the sacred scriptures is called by his proper name, I am that I am; and the beings on each side are those most ancient powers which are always close to the living God, one of which is called his creative power, and the other his royal power.
                      No one would question that Philo was a Jewish monotheist; yet here we have an exposition perfectly compatible with the Trinity: the Father, The Creative Power (the Son, or the Word), and the Royal Power (the Holy Spirit).

                      © Copyright Original Source



                      Source.

                      Given how the OT, Intertestamental literature, and the NT talk about Christ, yeah, it's closer than how you explained it.
                      Does that mean you believe that for example, the Father created a human nature in Heaven and gave it to the Word of God who then went down to live in an empty spiritless body created by parthenogenesis or something? The creation of Adam comes close to that, but if you want to apply that to Jesus, you're still having a human body and nature to start with, followed by God dwelling within it. Or taking it on, or however you want to phrase it. It's ultimately not going to be much different from what I'm saying.

                      Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                      But your description is a kind of reincarnation, your version has one person living two totally distinct lives with two totally distinct bodies.
                      They aren't distinct bodies if it's the same resurrected flesh. Like I said in the beginning though, sure, if you're resurrected in 1000 years, I suppose you'll be living quite a different life than you are now, right?

                      Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                      Lazarus was resuscitated, which in a sense is no different than someone being brought back by CPR. God knows when a person isn't going to be revived like that, and like the thief on the cross they will be going to their destination that day.
                      So Jesus lied that he was dead and it was all a big hoax? I don't understand your explanation, you're either dead or alive, and the dead either go straight to Judgment the moment they die or they don't. Or are you saying there are exceptions to the latter? If there are exceptions for one then there may be exceptions for many unless otherwise stated.
                      John 11:14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.

                      John 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

                      John 11:44 And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go.

                      John 11:45 Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him.

                      Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                      Because it's not a "resurrection", but a form of reincarnation, and it doesn't match up to what God has done Biblically. So no, it's not "just IVF along with biblical resurrection", it's something entirely unbiblical.
                      Yes it would be resurrection of same spirit/flesh, not reincarnation of same spirit/different flesh. I've already shown that your argument of living different lives is meaningless, since of course most people will be living different lives when they're resurrected after perhaps thousands of years.

                      Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                      I'd say wrong on all counts. You obviously haven't looked hard for a reason for the virgin birth. There are several answers. 1 the Messianic promise to Eve...
                      Like I said if we apply the promise to Eve in that way then maybe we should also be looking for an evil "Jesus" born of a virgin Serpent.

                      Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                      ...2 the need for Jesus to be free of original sin. I think there are others, but I can't think of them off hand. I find that this is a good article on the topic.
                      If the human body of Jesus was free of Original Sin, that is, the curse of death on the world due to Adam's sin, then his human body would not have died. If you are talking about the sin nature, Jesus had that too, being tempted to sin as we are, yet he was obedient and thus without sin.

                      Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                      That's an eschatological prophecy, and it does not say that the "Branch of Jesse" is the child who is leading the animals. In fact, this verse points back to Eden and how God created both man and animal vegetarian originally. It shows how even children will be capable of fulfilling the mandate of "subduing the earth".

                      Source: Maclaren's Expositions

                      We pass from the picture of the character and rule of the King over men to that fair vision of Paradise regained, which celebrates the universal restoration of peace between man and the animals. The picture is not to be taken as a mere allegory, as if ‘lions’ and ‘wolves’ and ‘snakes’ meant bad men; but it falls into line with other hints in Scripture, which trace the hostility between man and the lower creatures to sin, and shadow a future when ‘the beasts of the field shall be at peace with thee.’ The psalm which sings of man’s dominion over the creatures is to be one day fulfilled; and the Epistle to the Hebrews teaches that it is already fulfilled in Christ, who will raise His brethren, for whom He tasted death, to partake in His dominion.

                      © Copyright Original Source



                      Source.

                      You're taking one thing which you think has significance, and letting it override other things in what they mean. You can't see the forest because you are concentrated on a tree.
                      That's a nice idea, but it's not really about children playing with animals, it's symbolism about the Messiah bringing the world under his authority:
                      Jeremiah 5:6 Wherefore a lion out of the forest shall slay them, and a wolf of the evenings shall spoil them, a leopard shall watch over their cities: every one that goeth out thence shall be torn in pieces: because their transgressions are many, and their backslidings are increased.

                      Jeremiah 11:19 But I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter; and I knew not that they had devised devices against me, saying, Let us destroy the tree with the fruit thereof, and let us cut him off from the land of the living, that his name may be no more remembered.

                      Isaiah 11:4 But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.

                      Isaiah 11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

                      Isaiah 11:10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        (Due to the nature of Johnny's post, I had to respond almost entirely tongue in cheek.)

                        Originally posted by JohnnyP View Post
                        I'm going to get right to the point:

                        LDS is atheism wrapped in polytheism inside Christianity.

                        The polytheism is clear: In Greek mythology, Zeus turned into a mortal and had sex with the mortal Selene to produce a demigod Dionysus.

                        But in LDS, God the Father condescended to be a mortal man to have literal sex with mortal Mary to produce the mortal body of a demigod Jesus
                        You are wrong. LDS doctrine, provided by the Book of Mormon itself, teaches that Mary was a virgin. 1 Nephi 11:18 "And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh."

                        It is true that LDS believe that God the Father is literally the Father of Jesus Christ; however, if you know anything about science, you would know that actual sexual intercourse is not necessary for a person to have a pregnancy in its natural course.

                        Originally posted by JohnnyP View Post
                        LDS one-ups Greek mythology: God the Father in a spirit body had literal sex with a mysterious Heavenly Mother to produce the spirit body of Jehovah,
                        Really? Spiritual children are produced by "literal sex"? Do you mean "physical sexual intercourse" in order to make spirits? And sex is gross right? Eeewwww, yucky.

                        Interesting JohnnyP. Please continue, because you seem to know a lot more about the creation of spirits than anyone else I have ever met. Go on ....

                        Originally posted by JohnnyP View Post
                        ... and mysteriously transferred the spirit body of Jehovah through sex with Mary into the mortal body of Jesus.
                        So, in your religion, there is no "mystery" about it right? You know exactly the scientific details of how God did it. Please enlighten your audience Johnny. I mean, we all know that Mary, being the mother, had an egg which had half of the genetic information necessary in order to make a human being. Please explain where the other genetic information came from and the exact nature of that genetic material. Who is the Father of Jesus?

                        Originally posted by JohnnyP View Post
                        Stopping at this point, most Mormons start to squirm when I ask about the Alpha God who started it all, and with good reason.
                        Nothing to squirm about. The scriptures address THIS creation. It starts with this Heaven and Earth We don't know what happened before. Is every Universe like this one. We don't know. We know that Christ created this creation/universe under the direction of God the Father. Christ is the Alpha and Omega as far as we are concerned, as he was the author of time itself.

                        As far as what happened BEFORE the creation, LDS leaders have no problem admitting that they do not know:

                        "Many have tried to penetrate to the First Cause of all things; but it would be as easy for an ant to number the grains of sand on the earth. It is not for man, with his limited intelligence, to grasp eternity in his comprehension. … It would be as easy for a gnat to trace the history of man back to his origin as for man to fathom the First Cause of all things, lift the veil of eternity, and reveal the mysteries that have been sought after by philosophers from the beginning. What then, should be the calling and duty of the children of men? Instead of inquiring after the origin of Gods—instead of trying to explore the depths of eternities that have been, that are, and that will be, instead of endeavoring to discover the boundaries of boundless space, let them seek to know the object of their present existence, and how to apply, in the most profitable manner for their mutual good and salvation, the intelligence they possess. Let them seek to know and thoroughly understand things within their reach, and to make themselves well acquainted with the object of their being here, by diligently seeking unto a super-power for information and by the careful study of the best books" (DBY, 25).

                        So what do you think Johnny? What was God doing for eternity before he decided to create the Universe?

                        Originally posted by JohnnyP View Post
                        That's why when you get down to that understanding, LDS is inherently atheist.
                        Ha! That's usually the impression that people get. Those darn Mormons are just too dang atheist. You are hilarious.

                        Originally posted by JohnnyP View Post
                        Wrapped up like baby Jesus and presented to gullible people, it's everything we want: atheism, polytheism, we can be like gods too, there is no ultimate God! But it's still the message of Satan
                        Yeah. Everyone knows that Satan wants us to be like Jesus. Silly Satan.

                        Genesis 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

                        I hate to break it to you Johnny, but Satan said two things 1) they would not die if they ate the fruit (that was a lie) 2) they would be like gods, knowing good and evil (that part was true). It was confirmed by God, speaking to the other gods 17 verses later:

                        Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil" (Genesis 3:22)

                        I don't think you know the scriptures very well Johnny.

                        Originally posted by JohnnyP View Post
                        Now here's a biblical view:

                        LDS also acknowledges an intelligent energy by which spirit bodies then human bodies come to exist. I'll make it simple to say that the intelligent energy is Father God to start with, and He acts on creation by emanating power which is the Spirit, and instructions by which the Spirit will act on creation which is the Word of God. So for an analogy, God is one like I am one employer who may exert my influence (Spirit) on employees (creation) to give them instructions (Word), and my influence and instructions may take on different forms as they go out into my workforce, but we are all still one. We aren't actually different humans standing around in different places. It's still more about human perception of who I am, ....
                        Are you a pantheist Johnny?


                        -7up

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          Since Elohim is "exalted" according to Joseph Smith, then he is a god by grace, just like we would be. Same with Christ. He is only a god by being exalted by grace by Elohim.
                          For example: "For this reason also, God (the Father) highly exalted Him (Jesus Christ), and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,… (Phil 2:9-10)

                          7up wrote: The term "exalted" is used in reference to Jesus Christ in the New Testament ... so, as usual, you don't know what you are talking about.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          Yes I do, and you are dodging the implications yet again. Not that I am surprised though...
                          Let's break it down Bill. You clearly just argued that being exalted means that you must be a "god by grace". However, you and I know know that this is not true, because Christ was exalted, and being sinless did not require grace. In fact, LDS teachings clearly show that Jesus was DEITY even prior to mortality. So again, you clearly do not know what you are talking about.

                          Let's start with that, before I continue on any other part of your post.

                          -7up

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                            For example: "For this reason also, God (the Father) highly exalted Him (Jesus Christ), and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,… (Phil 2:9-10)

                            7up wrote: The term "exalted" is used in reference to Jesus Christ in the New Testament ... so, as usual, you don't know what you are talking about.



                            Let's break it down Bill. You clearly just argued that being exalted means that you must be a "god by grace".
                            From an LDS standpoint of gods being granted godhood, yes.

                            However, you and I know know that this is not true, because Christ was exalted, and being sinless did not require grace.
                            But there is no such thing as a "god by nature" in LDS theology since all gods were mortal and required to be made gods by another being.

                            In fact, LDS teachings clearly show that Jesus was DEITY even prior to mortality.
                            But only for a while. He EARNED it. There is no denying that fact. And as such, he can not be called a "god by nature" the way orthodox Christians correctly use the term.

                            So again, you clearly do not know what you are talking about.
                            No, it's you who is either a flat out liar or woefully ignorant of your church's teachings.

                            Let's start with that, before I continue on any other part of your post.
                            Lets.

                            Source: http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Godhood


                            Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus Christ attained godhood (see Christology) and that he marked the path and led the way for others likewise to become exalted divine beings by following him

                            © Copyright Original Source

                            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


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                              (Due to the nature of Johnny's post, I had to respond almost entirely tongue in cheek.)

                              You are wrong. LDS doctrine, provided by the Book of Mormon itself, teaches that Mary was a virgin. 1 Nephi 11:18 "And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh."

                              It is true that LDS believe that God the Father is literally the Father of Jesus Christ; however, if you know anything about science, you would know that actual sexual intercourse is not necessary for a person to have a pregnancy in its natural course.
                              I see you responded to none of my arguments about the Messianic promise, Mary's lineage, and other problems with both LDS and common Christian views. My position that Jesus was conceived as fully man with the full presence of God within him, and born of a virgin by resurrection, is biblical. While God the Father turning into a man to do what exactly? Donate His sperm to sire Jesus? Not so much biblical.

                              "After the manner of the flesh" usually implies sexual intercourse: ...the Immortal Father...came down from his station of dominion and power to become the Father of a Son who would be born of Mary -- how are you saying this was done?

                              Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                              Really? Spiritual children are produced by "literal sex"? Do you mean "physical sexual intercourse" in order to make spirits? And sex is gross right? Eeewwww, yucky.

                              Interesting JohnnyP. Please continue, because you seem to know a lot more about the creation of spirits than anyone else I have ever met. Go on ....
                              Sex between gods to produce gods is polytheism, sex between humans to produce other humans under one God is monotheism. Pretty simple.

                              Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                              So, in your religion, there is no "mystery" about it right? You know exactly the scientific details of how God did it. Please enlighten your audience Johnny. I mean, we all know that Mary, being the mother, had an egg which had half of the genetic information necessary in order to make a human being. Please explain where the other genetic information came from and the exact nature of that genetic material. Who is the Father of Jesus?
                              Mary's lineage is unknown except for being Levite Elizabeth's cousin, there's no clear biblical tracing of her back to David, but it wouldn't matter anyway, the Messianic promise doesn't go through a woman or by adoption, and it could only come straight from David as I've explained.

                              I'll reiterate my position:

                              David and Bathsheba were the parents of Jesus.
                              Jesus had the Messianic birthright from the start.
                              Jesus died for David's sin of causing Uriah's death.
                              Solomon was born and received the birthright.
                              Solomon lost it due to following other gods.
                              Solomon's throne was destroyed by Babylon.
                              David was the only one to hold the promise.
                              David's promise was to always have a son on the throne.

                              After so many generations with no king the promise could not be fulfilled without resurrecting his own son to close the gap between generations. Jesus the son who died for David's sins was resurrected into Mary's womb to accomplish this, then he died for sins of everyone and was resurrected again to fulfill the Messianic prophecies.

                              Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                              Nothing to squirm about. The scriptures address THIS creation. It starts with this Heaven and Earth We don't know what happened before. Is every Universe like this one. We don't know. We know that Christ created this creation/universe under the direction of God the Father. Christ is the Alpha and Omega as far as we are concerned, as he was the author of time itself.
                              I keep seeing that you don't know what happened before, so how do you know God the Father was once a man?

                              Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                              As far as what happened BEFORE the creation, LDS leaders have no problem admitting that they do not know:

                              "Many have tried to penetrate to the First Cause of all things; but it would be as easy for an ant to number the grains of sand on the earth. It is not for man, with his limited intelligence, to grasp eternity in his comprehension. … It would be as easy for a gnat to trace the history of man back to his origin as for man to fathom the First Cause of all things, lift the veil of eternity, and reveal the mysteries that have been sought after by philosophers from the beginning. What then, should be the calling and duty of the children of men? Instead of inquiring after the origin of Gods—instead of trying to explore the depths of eternities that have been, that are, and that will be, instead of endeavoring to discover the boundaries of boundless space, let them seek to know the object of their present existence, and how to apply, in the most profitable manner for their mutual good and salvation, the intelligence they possess. Let them seek to know and thoroughly understand things within their reach, and to make themselves well acquainted with the object of their being here, by diligently seeking unto a super-power for information and by the careful study of the best books" (DBY, 25).
                              "Instead of inquiring after the origin of Gods..." -- give me a break, why do you think we're having this discussion about the origin of God the Father as a man!

                              Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                              So what do you think Johnny? What was God doing for eternity before he decided to create the Universe?
                              Maybe creating other universes, which isn't unbiblical, but I don't imply that I know, while LDS does: Gods were apparently creating Gods from eternity.

                              Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                              Ha! That's usually the impression that people get. Those darn Mormons are just too dang atheist. You are hilarious.
                              Most people don't delve into Mormon theology as much as we're doing here. Unless there was one top eternal God somewhere back in the chain, there's not really a theistic Creator God who created everything from nothing, more like higher life forms originating out of material universes producing others.

                              Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                              Yeah. Everyone knows that Satan wants us to be like Jesus. Silly Satan.

                              Genesis 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

                              I hate to break it to you Johnny, but Satan said two things 1) they would not die if they ate the fruit (that was a lie) 2) they would be like gods, knowing good and evil (that part was true). It was confirmed by God, speaking to the other gods 17 verses later:

                              Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil" (Genesis 3:22)

                              I don't think you know the scriptures very well Johnny.
                              I already went over this, having one aspect of God, like knowing good and evil, doesn't make a God. Telling people they can be gods too is still the message of Satan.

                              Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                              Are you a pantheist Johnny?

                              -7up
                              Nope, I guess you just didn't get that I was using an analogy about how Trinity works.

                              Comment

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