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

Bill and 7up talk about stuff

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

  • Bill and 7up talk about stuff

    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
    When a father passes on something as an "inheritance", it means that the father possesses the very thing that he is passing on.
    Considering the Father possesses all things, that is true. But, again, the thing inherited was not deity, nor any title. It was the position of King of the Jews. And again, this is a functional role, not a nature.


    Amongst the sons of God ("sons of the morning" / "morning stars"), Jesus was entirely unique. He was Deity by his very nature, while the other sons of God were not.
    And, because they possess a different nature than they do, He can not be considered of the same species.


    There were many "sons of God" / "sons of the morning" / "morning stars" ;
    The former is a generic term that encompasses all who do the will of the Father. It is not an ontological description, nor is it an indicator of physical lineage. It means that they, and we, belong to God. The latter were descriptions of glory that were being compared to the shining of the "morning star" which was the planet Venus. You would completely ignore that fact in favor of your johnny-come-lately church's false interpretation that they were categories of beings.

    there were many spirits who were foreordained before the foundation of the world; and Jesus is the "Firstbegotten" among them, which is the term which designates Him as the principle heir of the Kingdom among those sons of God, who has made it so that we may be "joint heirs" with Him.
    Jesus is the ONLY begotten of the Father. We become sons through ADOPTION. You do know that adoption means that someone who is NOT your father becomes your father legally, right? If we were already "sons of God" before the world, then there would be no need for adoption.


    Please explain how you think what I said above does not correspond to Trinity doctrine. The Father and Son, in the "Trinity" are the same Being/substance.
    But they are separate persons with individual consciousnesses. THAT is who does the "sending".


    You are referring to Isaiah 5:9, which reads: "For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace."

    However, I was thinking more of titles like "Lord/Adonai", "God", "Theos" , "Holy One" , "Eheyeh/I become" , "Maker/Creator" , etc.
    All of those names were possessed by Jesus before creation. What BECAME Jesus' was "King of the Jews", and the true fulfillment of the name given to His humanity, "God with us". Once He resurrected and defeated death, hell, and the grave, God could truly be with us. Jesus inherited that because He won.



    How does he "inherit" names from the Father, if the name were always applicable.
    NAME, not name"S". Jesus, the God/Man became King of the Jews, which is the entire point of Hebrews 1.

    From the LDS perspective, Jesus was appointed to gain these titles before the creation of the physical Universe.
    And from the Christian perspective, He always had them as a result of being the monogenes


    I am claiming that the eternal intelligence of Christ was perfect by nature, therefore, unlike the rest of us, was Deity by nature. The Father recognized this before the creation of the physical universe and "chose/anointed" Jesus from among the other sons of God to be the heir of the Kingdom. And that is how Christ was given authority over creation and the sons of God (angels). I repeat, the authority was given to Jesus Christ and these things became subject to Him and this endowment of authority was something that was determined by the Father.

    -7up
    So, was there EVER a time in Jesus' existence, whether spirit or "intelligence" that He was not deity?
    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

  • #2
    Ex Nihilo video series

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post

    Let's look at your video, shall we?

    1) You start with a genetic fallacy, which you waste several slides on in relation to pas trying to disprove the meaning of "all". Bill Clinton would be proud of you.
    Thayers Greek-English Lexicon lists the following meanings and usages of the word:
    2. Without a substantive
    a. Masculine and feminine every one, any one, in the singular without addition
    (6) Panta, in an absolute sense, all things that exist, all created things (as used in Eph 3:9 and 1 Peter 4:7)
    All "created things" were created by God. However, there are uncreated things. I simply demonstrated, that if you attempt to use "all" in the absolute sense in which you are attempting, then you will get all kinds of illogical conclusions and contradictions. I provided Biblical examples.


    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    2) You harken back to your creation video where you mistakenly equate 'bara "create" in the Qal form to 'bara "cutting out" in the Piel form.
    I explain how the "root word etymology" refers to "cutting out / separating". If you ever bothered to watch more than one minute of the videos, you would see that I am much more thorough than you would like. I specifically describe the different forms of 'bara' in the video, I give an example how the first form is used and then I give Biblical examples of the second form and how your view contradicts how the very same form of the verb is used elsewhere in the text. So, quite frankly Bill, you don't know what you are talking about. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzIbLUPKgfY

    Let me give you another example which is not even in that video.

    "In the day that God created (bara') man, in the likeness of God made he him;" (Gen 5:1)

    Tell me Bill. IN THE DAY that God created man, did God create man out of nothing? Is that how bara' is used?

    This verse proves you wrong when it explains HOW God created. He FORMS it from something:

    7Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.


    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    3) You mistakenly assume that there are things outside of heaven and earth (or the known universe as you call it) that are not God Himself. You also mistakenly assume that Paul means space only when he mentions "heaven" with no warrant for this assumption outside your own unproven thesis. That is circular reasoning. In fact, that is the second heaven according to the Jews. The third heaven is not in our known universe, but is in the spiritual realm outside of our universe. God created that too.
    The assumptions and circular reasoning is yours Bill. You assume that creation implies "out of nothing", despite every single example in the Bible demonstrating creation from something.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    4) You then take Hebrews 11:3, which literally translates: by faith we understand the ages to have been prepared by a saying of God, in regard to the things seen not having come out of things appearing Young's Literal Translation and try to make it fit your ex materia preconceptions. Paul simply meant that the universe, and time itself, was prepared by God through Christ, and that it was not made of the things they could see right then. That would mean that matter itself was not eternal, again something the Hebrews were also mistakenly believing.
    You are adding meaning to the text which simply is not there. Paul says that God created the universe out of "invisible" things. In other words, that which CAN be seen was created out of something that cannot be seen. That destroys the assumption that God created the Universe out of nothing at the moment of the Big Bang. You say that "light" was created Ex Nihilo at the moment of the Big Bang, however, the text says that there was something there before that.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    5) You then mistakenly equate those things that were seen by the Hebrews as the writer of Hebrews saying that "things unseen" were eternal, and what made up the things seen. By that, I mean you make a leap in stating that by the writer's refuting eternal matter, he means there was some pre-existing eternal substance that was used to make what was seen. The text does not say that, nor does the grammar support it. It only says that the things they could see were not made from the things they could see. It does not say at all what they were actually made of, nor HOW they were made.
    2 Corinthians 4:18 "For momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison, while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal."

    "Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it had a beginning? The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end. That is good logic. That which has a beginning may have an end." - Joseph Smith

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    It only says that the things they could see were not made from the things they could see. It does not say at all what they were actually made of, nor HOW they were made.
    The text clearly does say that it was created out of something or from something. And if you claim that the text does not say HOW they were made, then why would you assume that God created it "out of nothing".

    -7up
    Last edited by seven7up; 05-03-2014, 01:37 PM. Reason: grammar

    Comment


    • #3
      Oneness

      7UP: God the Father IS God/Deity. Jesus Christ IS God/Deity. It is quite difficult to "differentiate" between them because they act as "one".

      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
      Because they are one. They both share the nature of God.
      I agree that they have the same nature, but that does not mean that they are literally the same being/substance. In what sense are they one? Jesus Christ illustrates and Trinitarians LOVE to ignore Christ's own words using this obviously figurative language:

      "I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21*that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22*I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23*I in them and you in me..."

      There you have it, John 17 crushes your misguided interpretation of "oneness" all over again. LDS use and understand the words the way they are used elsewhere in the Biblical text. Meanwhile, you use vocabulary and definitions derived from the man made creeds.

      David Noel Freedman explained this way:

      "The victory over Arianism achieved at the Council was really a victory snatched by the superior energy and decision of a small minority with the aid of half-hearted allies. The majority did not like the business at all, and strongly disapproved of the introduction into the Creed new and untraditional and unscriptural terms."
      http://www.vdebooks.com/divine-commi...i-PDF-3166905/

      The reason why I brought in Ex Nihilo into this discussion, is because the idea of creation "out of nothing" is one of the factors that helped overthrow "subordinationist" views of the Godhead, which were in the majority prior to the formation of Creedal Trinitarianism. If Jesus Christ was made or begotten "out of nothing", then how can He be eternal? Therefore, Trinitarians had to invent concepts like Jesus being constantly issued forth from the Father, who sustains the Son's existence from all eternity and thus is called "eternally begotten". This was a ploy to change the meaning of the language and what it actually means to be "begotten". Don't expect LDS to buy into it. You have to come up with silly things like "functional subordination" , whereby Jesus has to act like he is subordinate to the Father, but he really isn't because they are actually the same being/substance. All of that is nonsense and unBiblical.

      7UP: LDS scripture says that there is one God. For example, when Christ says in Doctrine and Covenants: "I am the true light ... I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one." (D&C 93:2-3)

      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
      This doesn't say specifically that there is one God.
      It doesn't say there is literally one metaphysical substance, which is what Trinitarians assume when speaking of "one God." Instead, the LDS scripture speaks of "one God" in the same sense that the Bible uses it, and is shown by Christ's own words above, as well as the other Biblical examples of "oneness" that I have provided.

      - - - - - - - - - -- - -- -- - -
      7UP: The question is: In what sense are they "one"? Oneness of God can be found in scripture in the following ways:
      (1) There is only one perfectly united, mutually indwelling, divine community. We call that community "God" and there is only one such community.


      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
      This is getting kind of close. But it needs to be stipulated that the community is closed to new members, and the 3 members in it have always been in it.
      There could be more members. Please provide, if you can, scriptures which deny the possibility of a "Heavenly Mother" in that community.

      7UP: (2) There is only one God who is our Father or the fount of divinity (ie "the Most High God).

      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
      More like the eternal source of the divinity.
      The fact that God is the "Most High God" implies that there are lower "gods".

      7UP: (3) There is only one divine nature or set of properties severally necessary and jointly sufficient for divinity.

      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
      Which is inherent only to God. No other can possess them. Ever.
      God's plan includes bestowing these properties upon man kind.

      "His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature - (2 Peter 1:3-4)

      The ontological divide that you place between God and man undermines a core premise of Christianity, namely that Jesus Christ was both God and man. God can overcome that ontological divide and has demonstrated that.

      7UP: (4) When compared to the false gods of other nations, there was only one Lord/Saviour who could provide redemption/salvation

      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
      So, that would also mean that the others in the "community" were incapable of providing it
      Jesus Christ (who was Yahweh/Jehovah) in these passages was being compared to the false gods/idols of other nations. He is the one who would pay the penalty for sin, and is the true Savior. The other "gods" of the other nations were figments of their imagination and did not exist, until they "created" and "formed" them from wood, stone, metal, etc. That is the CONTEXT.

      Were the other members of the Godhead capable of performing the atonement? Maybe. But they didn't. Did God the Father suffer for my sins? No. Did the Holy Spirit suffer for my sins? No. They have a different role than Christ has. But you are missing the point. The Old Testament passages comparing the Lord God of Israel to the "gods" of other nations is NOT meant to be comparing Jesus Christ to God the Father or the Holy Spirit.

      Again, Jesus would not say "there is no god beside me" or "there is no other god" while standing at the right hand of the Father. In that context, it would be blasphemy.

      In fact, we know this because Jesus DID say things in this different contexts, such as:

      'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'”

      and

      "If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."


      Latter Day Saints are willing to look at these passages in their proper context, while Trinitarians attempt to apply language meant for idols/false gods to other areas of theology beyond what was the original intent of the authors.

      -7up
      Last edited by seven7up; 05-03-2014, 03:09 PM.

      Comment

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