No A-Z; either 100% T or 100% F

[nrajeff]

Your sentence implies that if the devils had faith in Christ AND works then they would be saved.
--Duh--If--instead of rebelling against God and trying to remove Him from His throne--they WOULD HAVE HAD faith that His plan was a good one, and done something GOOD with that faith, they wouldn't be in the trouble they're in now, I would guess. But that's the "LDS Christian" in me talking....


Note Father JD's comment which addresses the same point.
---Yes, I noted his conjectures that come from ***umptions based on vague Bible verses. The Cons***ution guarantees his right to invent entire fictional species of creatures in heaven, so I would not presume to stop him from doing so.

[Father_JD]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

James is teaching that a salvific FAITH will be demonstrated BY WORKS. If there are NO works which accompany "said" faith,it isn't faith at all,but called by him as a "dead faith".



James is using the word justification in verse 21 to mean a demonstration or vindication. Then in verse 23 he switches the meaning of the word justification to mean God's act of declaring or making a sinner righteous before God. Finally in verse 24 he reverts back to his original usage of the word justification as being a demonstration or vindication.


Quote:
21 Was not Abraham our father justified [i.e. vindicated] by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?
23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says,"AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD,AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS," and he was called the friend of God.
24 You see that a man is justified [i.e. vindicated] by works and not by faith alone for it only vindicated him.

James used the word justification to also mean a demonstration or vindication and not a justification as Paul consistently used the term. As the grammar in verse 24 would require that this definition must serve as a referent for both faith and works James would be making the argument that a man is vindicated both by works and faith which would cease to make faith that which justified Abraham before God.

Bottom line, M is that James is giving a DESCRIPTIVE p***age. Works do NOT justify as a CAUSAL AGENT. Otherwise, you've got James CONTRADICTING PAUL. Do you understand that?




24 You see that a man is justified [i.e. vindicated] by works and not [i.e. vindicated] by faith alone for it only vindicated him.

It's FAITH ALONE which justifies, but it is a FAITH which is NEVER ALONE. You still don't understand this, M.

[Mesenja]

The apostle James is making a three part argument that having faith in God is not enough. Works must be add to faith as a demonstration of our willingness to do all that God requires of us for righteousness. He starts the defense of this premise by asking the rhetorical question,"What doth it profit,my brethren,though a man say he hath faith,and have not works? can faith save him?"

Then he gives a hypothetical example of a brother or a sister being "naked,and des***ute of daily food" with the response of the Christian being,"Depart in peace,be ye warmed and filled";notwithstanding that they are not given "those things which are needful to the body." He answers his own question in the negative by saying,"What doth it profit? Even so faith,if it hath not works,is dead,being alone."


In the second part of his argument James is also speaking in the hypothetical by using the form of an argumentative dialogue between two imaginary opponents. This debate is started by the first debater with this challenge,"Yea,a man may say,Thou hast faith,and I have works:shew me thy faith without thy works,and I will shew thee my faith by my work." The ***umption is made here that the first debater is asking his opponent to show his "faith without thy works."

The use of this extreme negative case of saying "Thou believest that there is one God;thou doest well:the devils also believe,and tremble" is not to contrast the faith of demons and the faith of Christians. It is to highlight the plausible alternative of those Christians who take care of the physical needs of his brothers and sisters against those whose only response is to say "Depart in peace,be ye warmed and filled".

The point being made here is that just as demons believe in God and are condemned so to a Christian stands under the same condemnation not by any refusal to acquiesce to his faith in God and salvation but through a refusal to add works to this faith.


In the third and final part of his argument he uses the example of Abraham who was "justified by works,when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar" seeing how "how faith wrought with his works,and by works was faith made perfect" He finishes his argument that faith and works are an indispensable unit working together in our justification by giving the example of Rahab by asking "Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works,when she had received the messengers,and had sent them out another way?"

[Father_JD]

I agree for the most part except you still don't understand it isn't a case of a Christian who makes a REFUSAL, but of one who SAYS or THINKS he's a Christian, but the paucity of works SAYS OTHERWISE. So what makes you think your cut and paste supports Mormon dogma?

[Mesenja]

I agree for the most part except you still don't understand it isn't a case of a Christian who makes a REFUSAL,but of one who SAYS or THINKS he's a Christian,but the paucity of works SAYS OTHERWISE. So what makes you think your cut and paste supports Mormon dogma?



In the example that James gives of a Christian who sees a brother or sister in the gospel "naked,and des***ute of daily food" and the response to this is saying to them "Depart in peace,be ye warmed and filled" will their faith alone save them?

[Billyray]

. . .will their faith alone save them?

What faith?

[Father_JD]

In the example that James gives of a Christian who sees a brother or sister in the gospel "naked,and des***ute of daily food" and the response to this is saying to them "Depart in peace,be ye warmed and filled" will their faith alone save them?


Not at all. Because James is teaching such ones HAVE NO REAL FAITH AT ALL!! Real FAITH is demonstrated by WORKS...otherwise it is DEAD as James wrote.

Listen again (for about the millioneth time...and I'm exagerating only a little...), M:

Faith ALONE saves, but a saving Faith is NEVER ALONE.

Are you beginning to understand, M? Finally? :rolleyes:

[Mesenja]

James is teaching that a salvific FAITH will be demonstrated BY WORKS. If there are NO works which accompany "said" faith,it isn't faith at all,but called by him as a "dead faith".

Bottom line,Mesenja is that James is giving a DESCRIPTIVE p***age. Works do NOT justify as a CAUSAL AGENT. Otherwise,you've got James CONTRADICTING PAUL. Do you understand that?

It's FAITH ALONE which justifies,but it is a FAITH which is NEVER ALONE. You still don't understand this,Mesenja.



Bottom line Father JD you haven't given a re****al. I understand the Protestant position. Finding any justification for it is more problematic for my understanding.

James and Paul are not only using Abraham as an example for justification they are citing the exact same p***age. My question to you is the following, Was Abraham justified or vindicated when when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?

[Mesenja]

What faith?



James tells the saints not to have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ with an at***ude of personal favoritism.



James 2:1 (New American Standard)

The Sin of Partiality

1 My brethren,do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an at***ude of personal favoritism.

[Mesenja]

Not at all. Because James is teaching such ones HAVE NO REAL FAITH AT ALL!! Real FAITH is demonstrated by WORKS...otherwise it is DEAD as James wrote.

Listen again (for about the millionth time...and I'm exaggerating only a little...),Mesenja:

Faith ALONE saves,but a saving Faith is NEVER ALONE.

Are you beginning to understand, Mesenja? Finally? :rolleyes:




The apostle Paul said that "if I have all faith,so as to remove mountains,but do not have love,I am nothing." (1 Corinthians 13:2) The faith that Paul was referring to was "faith working through love." (Galatians 5:6) More specifically it was our "work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ in the presence of our God and Father." (1 Thessalonians 1:3)

[Father_JD]

Is Paul really talking about the possibility of a REAL faith which isn't demonstrated by works? No. You guys simply don't "get it", jeff. Ever hear of parallelisms or hyperbole? Figures of speech????

[nrajeff]

Ever hear of parallelisms or hyperbole? Figures of speech????

--Why yes, as a matter of fact: Like when Jesus said He and His Father are one, or that God is spirit. A figure of speech, not intended to be taken literally. Right? What's that--you're saying no? But haven't you ever heard of hyperbole or figures of speech or metaphors? Did your coconut-induced amnesia have a relapse? Maybe you shouldn't watch Gilligan's Island reruns so much....

[Mesenja]

To demonstrate that faith without works does not save us James gave the following hypothetical argument to those already having "faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ" however showed "an at***ude of personal favoritism." At the start of this argument he asks the rhetorical question,"if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?" He answers in the negative with the statement,"Even so faith,if it has no works, is dead,being by itself."





James 2:1,14-17

1 My brethren,do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an at***ude of personal favoritism.
14 What use is it,my brethren,if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food,
16 and one of you says to them,"Go in peace,be warmed and be filled," and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body,what use is that?
17 Even so faith,if it has no works,is dead,being by itself.



James never argued that a saving faith is qualified by our works which are only it's side effect. What he was making the argument for was that justification is due to our faith working together with our works,and as a result of the works,faith being perfected or completed.



James 2:20-24

20 But are you willing to recognize,you foolish fellow,that faith without works is useless?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?
22 You see that faith was working with his works,and as a result of the works,faith was perfected;
23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says,"AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD,AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS," and he was called the friend of God.
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

These works are described by Paul as "faith working through love",our "work of faith" and also a "labor of love." (Galatians 5:6,1 Thessalonians 1:3)

[Mesenja]

James is teaching that a salvific FAITH will be demonstrated BY WORKS. If there are NO works which accompany "said" faith,it isn't faith at all,but called by him as a "dead faith".



Demonstrated to whom Father JD? Our justification is always before God and never before men. James also never differentiated between a "saving" faith and a non saving or "dead faith". James is not making the distinction between two kinds of faith. Our works do not qualify the faith that we have turning it into a faith that justifies. He was speaking to those who championed the cause of justification by faith alone that their belief is no better then that of demons.


James 2:18-19

18 But someone may well say,"You have faith and I have works;show me your faith without the works,and I will show you my faith by my works."
19 You believe that God is one. You do well;the demons also believe, and shudder.



James said that what is needed for our justification is not only faith but a faith acting together with our works. Otherwise as I have previously stated our belief in God is no better then that of the demons.




WHAT we DO is a result of WHO we ARE.



No what we do is a result of the choices that we make. James said that we are to follow the second greatest commandment and LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF and "So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty." In the hypothetical scenario given by James this necessitates that we provide for a fellow brother or sister in the gospel who "is without clothing and in need of daily food." What follows is that like Abraham whose faith was working alongside his works we will be justified.




The addressee of "God is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him" is directed TO BELIEVERS.



You are making a distinction without a difference. If by this you are making the argument that those who have faith will as a consequence produce good works then you have no case. James was speaking to those who had faith yet chose not to do good works.





Unbelievers do NOT have "faith" and can NEVER "please Him" in a reprobate state.



Once again you making a claim that is not supported by the Bible. Faith does not follow spiritual regeneration.

[James Banta]

JD, these mormons can't tell the differenc ebetween Salvation and reward.. These two are listed as totally seperate issues but still they mix them.. They even think we must prove what we are to the God of all creation to show Him what we are. Do we really have faith or is thta faith a sham.. The only way their god would know that is to show him.. But our God searches the heart and knows our deepest secrets (Psalm 44:21).. The mormons god has to see the fruit of our hands to know the faith that is in our hearts. I praise our Lord that he does know us as He does and loves us anyway.. IHS jim

[Mesenja]

Father JD,these Mormons can't tell the difference between salvation and reward. These two are listed as totally separate issues but still they mix them. They even think we must prove what we are to the God of all creation to show Him what we are. Do we really have faith or is that faith a sham. The only way their god would know that is to show him. But our God searches the heart and knows our deepest secrets (Psalm 44:21). The Mormon god has to see the fruit of our hands to know the faith that is in our hearts. I praise our Lord that he does know us as He does and loves us anyway. IHS Jim




i could not tell by your pompous and self righteousness post. Please address the arguments I made previously if you can.

[Father_JD]

Abraham was forensically JUSTIFIED in the sight of God when he performed the near-sacrifice of Issac.

Abraham was VINDICATED in the sight of man when he performed the near-sacrifice of Issac.

Answer your question?

[Mesenja]

Abraham was forensically JUSTIFIED in the sight of God when he performed the near-sacrifice of Issac. Abraham was VINDICATED in the sight of man when he performed the near-sacrifice of Issac.

Answer your question?



Is it your position that the apostle James taught that Abraham was only vindicated before men and not justified before God by his faith alone as his fellow apostle Paul taught when he performed the near-sacrifice of Issac?



James 2:21

21 Was not Abraham our father vindicated by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?
24 You see that a man is vindicated by works and not by faith alone.

[James Banta]

i could not tell by your pompous and self righteousness post. Please address the arguments I made previously if you can.

Yes I am pompous and self righteous because I see the Bible telling me that I am a complete and total sinner and have no place with God other than through Jesus.. How can I have such a self righteous at***ude as to believe that I can only be seen as righteous through the works of Jesus.. Are you mad? I am saying that I am saved by Him completely and totally not by works I have done.. Whereas Mormonism teaches that we are save by God's grace AFTER ALL WE CAN DO. That is self righteousness.. You can do things that make yourself acceptable to God.. And you call me pompous and self righteous.. That is complete and utter GALL..

I addressed no answer to you at all if you wish to ask me a question do so.. If I was to post to father_JD I will do so if I wish.. You can comment on what I say but don't expect everything I say to be about you..

Now is I were to tell someone who asked me who James says we should demonstrate our works to I would say toward other Christians. After all James said that is who his works were there to be seem by. He said, "show ME your faith without your works and I will show YOU my faith by my works (James 2:18).. And how about the devils what is it that they believe? Look for once instead of just using the verse to support your pet doctrine..

James 2:19
Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
Do you believe that God is One? Or do you believe like Joseph Smith taught that there are three Gods? See mormonism doesn't even teach as much as the devils know. That The Lord our God is ONE LORD (Deut 6:4).. Until you conform your faith in God to knowing as much as the devils KNOW you don't need to worry about good works.. After all the Holy Spirit through the Apostle Paul teaches that salvation is by God's grace not by work so we can't do what you are doing, boasting of your piety.. God does whoever prepares good works for those that have been saved by His grace to walk in.

These works are between me and my LORD. He has said that when I do good works I should allow my left hand know what my right hand is doing.. That God who sees what I do in private will reward me openly.. With that authority I will say that Yes I have works that God the Holy Spirit has directed me to do, and no I will not explain further to you or anyone than that admission.. I call on you to follow the admonition of James rejecting the teachings of Smith and believe
that God is one Lord.. IHS jim

[Father_JD]

Is it your position that the apostle James taught that Abraham was only vindicated before men and not justified before God by his faith alone as his fellow apostle Paul taught when he performed the near-sacrifice of Issac?

No, James is saying that Abraham was forensically justified by faith and that this faith was vindicated by his works.

[Mesenja]

What I got was the following broad and overreaching answer. I wasn't asking you how James was making the argument for works and faith as it relates to our justification for the entire chapter.




No,James is saying that Abraham was forensically justified by faith and that this faith was vindicated by his works.



What I asked you was how James used the word justify in a specific instance that being the following verse.



James 2:21

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?

Did he mean to say here that Abraham was forensically justified by faith before God or only vindicated by his works before men? A yes or no answer being all that is required here.


Vindicated before whom Father JD? There is no scriptural warrant for you to say that we are ever justified before men. When Abraham took Isaac up the mountain to be sacrificed he was justified before God and not before men. Abraham's servants who went with him were told to wait at the bottom of the mountain.




Genesis 22:3,5

3 So Abraham rose early in the morning and saddled his donkey,and took two of his young men with him and Isaac his son;and he split wood for the burnt offering, and arose and went to the place of which God had told him.
5 Abraham said to his young men,"Stay here with the donkey,and I and the lad will go over there;and we will worship and return to you."



Genesis 22:10-12

10 Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to slay his son.
11 But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said, "Abraham, Abraham !" And he said, "Here I am."
12 He said,"Do not stretch out your hand against the lad,and do nothing to him;for now I know that you fear God,since you have not withheld your son,your only son,from Me."

Abraham displayed faith when he took his family and went to the land that God would show him. This is the same faith that justified Abel,Enoch and Noah as God is the rewarder of those who seek to do His will.





Genesis 12:1-5

1 Now the LORD said to Abram,"Go forth from your country,And from your relatives And from your father's house,To the land which I will show you;
2 And I will make you a great nation,And I will bless you,And make your name great;And so you shall be a blessing ;
3 And I will bless those who bless you,And the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed."
4 So Abram went forth as the LORD had spoken to him;and Lot went with him. Now Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran.



Hebrews 11:8

8 By faith Abraham,when he was called,obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance;and he went out,not knowing where he was going.



Hebrews 11:4-7

4 By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain,through which he obtained the testimony that he was righteous,God testifying about his gifts,and through faith, though he is dead,he still speaks.
5 By faith Enoch was taken up so that he would not see death;AND HE WAS NOT FOUND BECAUSE GOD TOOK HIM UP;for he obtained the witness that before his being taken up he was pleasing to God.
6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him,for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.
7 By faith Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen,in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household, by which he condemned the world, and became an heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.



Hebrews 11:6

6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him,for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

[Mesenja]

edit

The apostle James asked if Abraham was justified by his works. Please answer his rhetorical question with a yes or no answer.




James 2:21

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?

[James Banta]

James 2:21

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?

In our eyes he was, BUT in God's eyes Abram was justified by his faith in God (Gen 15:6).. IHS jim

[Mesenja]

In our eyes he was,BUT in God's eyes Abram was justified by his faith in God (Genesis 15:6). IHS Jim



The first is that nowhere in the New Testament does it say that other men are the determiners of our justification.

The second is that both James and Paul use the same verse,Genesis 15:6,for their argument as to how Abraham was justified and must by necessity offer the same interpretation,or they would be contradicting each other.

[nrajeff]

In our eyes he was,
--Does your Bible really have the phrase "In our eyes he was" ?? Or are you adding your beliefs to make the Bible say what it reallly did NOT say?
What plagues did John pronounce on anyone who would add to the Bible?

[Mesenja]

Yes I am pompous and self righteous because I see the Bible telling me that I am a complete and total sinner and have no place with God other than through Jesus. How can I have such a self righteous at***ude as to believe that I can only be seen as righteous through the works of Jesus? Are you mad? I am saying that I am saved by Him completely and totally not by works I have done. Whereas Mormonism teaches that we are save by God's grace AFTER ALL WE CAN DO. That is self righteousness. You can do things that make yourself acceptable to God. And you call me pompous and self righteous. That is complete and utter GALL.

IHS Jim



Why do you take offense when I point out what you claim claim to be?

[Father_JD]

What I got was the following broad and overreaching answer. I wasn't asking you how James was making the argument for works and faith as it relates to our justification for the entire chapter.

"Overreaching"? You mean like Mormon works-earn-salvation "prooftexts" (or so you think!) at the expense of Paul's NOT BY WORKS p***ages? :rolleyes:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Father_JD

No,James is saying that Abraham was forensically justified by faith and that this faith was vindicated by his works.



What I asked you was how James used the word justify in a specific instance that being the following verse.


Quote:
James 2:21

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?

Did he mean to say here that Abraham was forensically justified by faith before God or only vindicated by his works before men? A yes or no answer being all that is required here...Vindicated before whom Father JD? There is no scriptural warrant for you to say that we are ever justified before men. When Abraham took Isaac up the mountain to be sacrificed he was justified before God and not before men. Abraham's servants who went with him were told to wait at the bottom of the mountain.


I already answered that question, M.

Let's get down and dirty cause I'm gonna **** your fractured Mormon hermeneutic right out of the water. We're going to go through the relevant p***ages of James so hold on to your white bonnet:





Jam 1:16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.


Jam 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.


Jam 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.


Jam 1:19 ¶ Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath:


Jam 1:20 For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.


Jam 1:21 ¶ Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.


Jam 1:22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.

It's at this juncture that James begins his argument for the DIFFERENCE between a "said" faith and a salvific faith that is REAL:

Mere "hearers" of the Word are DECEIVING themselves. Can you agree with that?


Jam 1:23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a gl***:


Jam 1:24 For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.


Catch the ****ogy, M? That one "forgets" what manner of man he was", but what James means is that man "forgot" what manner he is supposed to be.


Jam 1:25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth [therein], he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

It's the one who doesn't just "hear" the word, but DOES it is BLESSED. Are you in agreement with this?


Jam 1:26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion [is] vain.

Key word: SEEM. James is laying out his argument as to what cons***utes a salvific faith (one demonstrated by works), and a merely professed faith by one who SEEMS to be "relgious". But as James says, that one has deceived himself and his "religion is vain". (Later to be labeled as "dead" faith by James)


Jam 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, [and] to keep himself unspotted from the world.

James is using a synecdoche here. Go LOOK up the term if you don't know it, M. Pure relgion goes way beyond just visiting orphans and widows or not being tainted by the world.

James 2:1-13 is about not respecting rich people over poorer ones.

Jam 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.

We're now coming to those fave Mormon prooftexts...pay attention, M. Remember that earlier James said about one who SEEMS religious but doesn't bridle his tongue, etc. he has deceived himself and his "relgion is in vain". James is going to describe a salvific faith, the kind which SAVES ONE...


Jam 2:14 ¶ What [doth it] profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

Remember now, James is speaking about someone who SEEMS religious, SAYS he has "faith" but this kind of "faith" is NOT producing fruit, i.e. NO WORKS. James THEN asks rhetorically, "can faith save him"? Meaning, can this KIND of "faith" (one that isn't evidenced by works) save him? The implied answer is NO: One who SEEMS religious, SAYS he has "faith" but doesn't have WORKS accompanying his said "faith" has DECEIVED himself and his religion is VAIN.

Do you see the overarching CONTEXT here, M? It's about the NATURE of FAITH: What REAL faith is and what a mere said "faith" isn't. James continues his argument by adding another illustration:


Jam 2:15 If a brother or sister be naked, and des***ute of daily food,


Jam 2:16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be [ye] warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what [doth it] profit?

So WHAT is James' MEANING? He answers in the next verse, but he's pointing out that one who SEEMS to be religious, SAYS he has faith, but chooses NOT to clothe or feed someone, "what does it profit"?? In other words, what GOOD is it? It's WORTHLESS. Why worthless? Because the one who SEEMS to be religious, SAYS he has faith, but doesn't feed or clothe the other who is in need demonstrates that his FAITH IS DEAD


Jam 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

Again, James is teaching WHAT is REAL FAITH (evidenced by works) and a DEAD FAITH (being alone, no works) which in short is NO faith at all.

Gotta go...will finish this response later! :)

[Russianwolfe]

"Overreaching"? You mean like Mormon works-earn-salvation "prooftexts" (or so you think!) at the expense of Paul's NOT BY WORKS p***ages? :rolleyes:


Don't forget that to lean to heavily on Paul, you have to ignore what Christ taught his whole earthly mission. He didn't teach by faith but by faith and works.

Marvin

[Mesenja]

James taught that Abraham was vindicated by his works when he offered up his son Isaac as a sacrifice to God.

Paul taught Abraham was forensically justified when he offered up his son Isaac as a sacrifice to God.

[Mesenja]

"Overreaching"? You mean like Mormon works-earn-salvation "proof texts" (or so you think!) at the expense of Paul's NOT BY WORKS p***ages? :rolleyes:



I never argued this. Your problem is that not only do you have no understanding of what Paul taught concerning works and faith you also have no understanding of what we teach on the subject.

[akaSeerone]

I never argued this. Your problem is that not only do you have no understanding of what Paul taught concerning works and faith you also have no understanding of what we teach on the subject.Actually I think JD has a much better understanding than you do on both these issues.

After all he isn't burdened with having to twist things to somehow (as hopeless a cause as it is) try to make Mormonism seem true while at the same time hoping no one notices the contradictions that you and the other Mormon mopologists are so famous for on this and other forums exposing the lie of Mormonism.

JD and the rest of us Christians here have the freedom to tell it like it is and we do that quite well thank you!

It is you that has no idea what Paul taught concerning works and grace and you have proven that with your twisting of NOT BY WORKS, LEST ANYONE COULD BOAST.

Paul couldn't have said it any plainer and yet you go through all sorts of demonic contortions to support mormonism instead of going by what Paul actually taught.

It would be wise for you to believe Paul instead of Smith and repent or you will surely burn.

Andy

[Father_JD]

Ok, I'm back...let's continue on with a verse by verse exegesis of James.

Jam 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

Again, what is the context, M.? It's about someone who SEEMS religious but has DECEIVED himself and his religion is in VAIN. And NOW, James posits the one who REALLY does have faith, i.e. "I will shew thee my faith by my works", i.e. I will demonstrate that my FAITH IS ALIVE BECAUSE OF WORKS, mine is a SALVIFIC faith which is evidenced by works as opposed to the one who SEEMS religious but has DECEIVED himself and his religion is in VAIN because he demonstrates a "faith" that doesn't have works. Again, the overall context is: What cons***utes REAL FAITH, M.


Jam 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

Now James is making comparison between those who pay lip-service to having faith, i.e. they believe there is one God (something you Mos don't believe, btw) and James is saying, "Big deal". The devils ALSO believe. In other words, your SAID faith is as worthless as devils "belief" that there is one God.


Jam 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

And here is his perfect description of one who SEEMS relgious, but is himself DECEIVED, his relgion is in VAIN because his faith is NOT evidenced by WORKS.


Jam 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

James is rhetorically asking, wasn't Abraham justified by his "works"? But can James MEAN in a forensic justification with "works" as a CAUSAL AGENT? NO, a thousand times, "NO". No, he means that Abraham's FAITH was a REAL faith, demonstrated by his WORKS. The above is descriptive, NOT prescriptive. Why? Because Paul wrote:

Rom 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath [whereof] to glory; but not before God.

Paul says Abraham is NOT JUSTIFIED BEFORE GOD BY HIS WORKS.

Hear Paul yet again:

Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.


We aren't justified in God's sight by "works", but by FAITH in Jesus Christ, a FAITH which is EVIDENCED BY WORKS as James now goes on to state:



Jam 2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?


His works completed, made Abraham's FAITH perfect...demonstrating that Abraham had REAL Faith as opposed to those who SEEM religious, but have DECEIVED themselves, and their religion is in VAIN because they have NO WORKS TO DEMONSTRATE THE REALITY OF A SALVIFIC FAITH!


Jam 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

And WHY was righteousness imputed to Abraham? Because he BELIEVED GOD and his FAITH was evidenced by WORKS: leaving Mesopotamia, coming close to sacrificing Issac, etc. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Abraham's FAITH was not as those who SEEM relgious, SAY they have "faith", but DECEIVE themselves and their religion is in VAIN because they have NO WORKS which would PROVE that they have FAITH, the KIND of FAITH THAT SAVES ONE.


Jam 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

So is James teaching that works justify in addition to faith in a forensic sense? NO. James has been describing all along that a SAVING FAITH WILL RESULT IN WORKS. So James gives a descriptive p***age, that a "by works man is justified, and not by faith only", MEANING the man is JUSTIFIED BY A FAITH THAT HAS WORKS WITH IT.

Now remember what Paul wrote:


Rom 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath [whereof] to glory; but not before God.


Paul's statement is CATEGORIC: Works do NOT justify in God's SIGHT. They can NOT be a CAUSAL AGENT as is FAITH.


Jam 2:25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent [them] out another way?

In a forensic way? NO. Why not? Because Paul says, "NOT BEFORE GOD". But Rahab was vindicated, her faith undoubtedly justified in man's eyes by works because she had a FAITH THAT WAS DEMONSTRATED BY WORKS, sending the messengers out another way.


Jam 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Finally, what is James saying? That the people who SEEM religious, SAY they have "faith" but who DECEIVE themselves and their religion is VAIN, because the have NO WORKS. This "kind" of FAITH is DEAD. It is without any salvific value. In short, such a "faith" is NO faith at all. it doesn't exist.

[Father_JD]

James taught that Abraham was vindicated by his works when he offered up his son Isaac as a sacrifice to God.

Paul taught Abraham was forensically justified when he offered up his son Isaac as a sacrifice to God.

CF my virtual verse by verse exegesis of the last part of James 1 and ALL of chapter 2.

No, there's NO contradiction because James is saying that Abraham was "justified by works" in the DESCRIPTVE SENSE. His FAITH was the causal factor but it was demonstrated to be a REAL FAITH, DEMONSTRATED BY WORKS.

James is saying, Abraham was JUSTIFIED because His FAITH was EVIDENCED BY WORKS.

It's you Mormons who remain in a state of contradiction because you can't harmonize Paul's categoric words that WORKS DO NOT JUSTIFY ONE (in the forensic sense) IN THE SIGHT OF GOD.

[Father_JD]

Don't forget that to lean to heavily on Paul, you have to ignore what Christ taught his whole earthly mission. He didn't teach by faith but by faith and works.

Marvin

Bottom line: Paul is in contradiction to Christ. Sure you wanna stick to that lame excuse in order to dismiss Paul, Christ's APOSTLE? :rolleyes:

[Father_JD]

I never argued this. Your problem is that not only do you have no understanding of what Paul taught concerning works and faith you also have no understanding of what we teach on the subject.

Ri-i-i-i-ight. Go exegete the second part of James 1 and ALL of 2 like I did WITH CROSS-REFERENCES TO PAUL'S TEACHING, present a legitimate alternative "interpretation" and I might believe you. (I know you can't.)

What do YOU teach?

Both Faith and Works are equally causal factors in both justification and salvation.

Are you now gonna dare say I'm in error? :rolleyes:

[James Banta]

---This is a priceless example of ironic hypocrisy. Let me spell it out for James and anyone else who might need the remedial version:

1. I say the devils believe.

2. FJD says I am wrong because, he says, the devils KNOW.

3. I say the Bible claims the devils BELIEVE.

4. Jim tries to come to the rescue by saying the Bible says the devils KNOW, and Jim also accuses ME of changing what the Bible says.

5. Here is the very bestest part of the whole circus: Jim QUOTES the Bible saying that the devils BELIEVE, and thinks he has proven that it was ME who was wrong!!!

Thanks for the laughs, Jim, you Bible-changing son of a gun. :):D:eek:

Here I quote the very verse in question that the devils believe.. Yes then in my restatement of the verse I say that they know who and what God is for after all these were the third of the angelic host that stood in heaven with God.. That was a interpretation of the meaning of that text based on other scripture that tells us who these evil beings were.. You are denying the scripture when you question that these beings don't know that God is one.. They were with Lucifer as He stood before God and was cast out with him (Rev 12:9). So did they know (knowledge) or was it faith (believing)? God asks you to understand His word is His, not John's or Isaiah's. It all fits together into one message, God's message. It is NOT wrong to say these beings KNEW that God is one, and more that it is to say the believe it. Both are true.. Not so funny when you open your eyes Jeff.. When you finally understand the meaning of our teachings and how it fits into just what the Bible tell us.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

The first is that nowhere in the New Testament does it say that other men are the determiners of our justification.

The second is that both James and Paul use the same verse,Genesis 15:6,for their argument as to how Abraham was justified and must by necessity offer the same interpretation,or they would be contradicting each other.

That is why one MUST see in these two teachings how men sees faith and how God sees it. God knows the heart. We don't need to show Him our faith at all.. He knows all along if it is a true and living faith or merely a head belief or a feeling one that makes no changes within our hearts..

As humans we can't do this. We can only see who a person really is by the way they act. This is very telling when James says "Show me your faith without your works and I will show you my faith by my works." Paul taught that this God given faith by which His grace is accessed has good works built into it by that same God who gives us the faith in the first place..

Eph 2:10
For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
Both men are teaching the same message.. Both tell it in a way that God wanted it told to the people God wanted to set straight by the message.. Just sitting back and not caring for each other saying "Be warm, be feed, be clothed, be sheltered" won't cut it when they have the ability given to them from God to change the misery of others into comfort..

Understand nothing James said here calls for baptism. Nothing James teaches calls for obedience to Law. He is calling for love. He is calling us to see the needs of those God has put in our lives so we can show His love and that He indeed lives within our hearts.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

--Does your Bible really have the phrase "In our eyes he was" ?? Or are you adding your beliefs to make the Bible say what it reallly did NOT say?
What plagues did John pronounce on anyone who would add to the Bible?

Do you claim to see into any man's heart? I can only see Abraham's faith through his actions.. Did God need see Abraham's works before He called him to be the man whom which He choose to bring salvation to all men through? No.. God knew his heart before He called him Abraham and knew it was filled with faith.. For he believed God, and He counted it for righteousness..

God see our Faith man only sees the works of faith.. Therefore "faith without works is dead", but it is Faith that saves.. If a man comes to Jesus in faith and is killed by a bus 2 minutes later, that man is just as saved as if he had been a believing serving christian all his days.. For salvation is "Not of works".. IHS jim

[nrajeff]

You are denying the scripture when you question that these beings don't know that God is one..

--So what you are saying is that when I QUOTE the Bible, I am DENYING it? And when YOU MISQUOTE it by changing what it says into what it "SHOULD have said," then YOU are quoting it ACCURATELY?

Am I the only one who finds this entertaining?


It is NOT wrong to say these beings KNEW that God is one, and more that it is to say the believe it. Both are true..
--So now you're changing from "You are wrong, the Bible doesn't say they believe" to "They BOTH believe AND know" ?? What was wrong with your original accusation against me--did you figure out that the Bible really does say what I quoted it as saying, and now you are trying to do CYA damage control?


Not so funny when you open your eyes Jeff..
---No, it's still funny.


When you finally understand the meaning of our teachings ---Yeah, your teachings seem to be that we shouldn't believe what the Bible says--instead, we should believe what YOU CLAIM it really MEANT.

[James Banta]

[nrajeff;67674]--So what you are saying is that when I QUOTE the Bible, I am DENYING it? And when MISQUOTE it by changing what it says into what it "SHOULD have said," then YOU are quoting it ACCURATELY?
Am I the only one who finds this entertaining?

I have shown you with Biblical proof for what I said and stand by it being accurate.. Mormonism teaches that the devils were in heaven with the Father at one time.. James said that they have faith that God is one.. You must be in agreement with me that they have knowledge of God and His nature.. You disagree with James that He is one, but mormonism still holds that these devils would have knowledge of God's nature.



--So now you're changing from "You are wrong, the Bible doesn't say they believe" to "They BOTH believe AND know" ?? What was wrong with your original accusation against me--did you figure out that the Bible really does say what I quoted it as saying, and now you are trying to do CYA damage control?

In my original post on this subject I said that the devils both believe and have knowledge of God's nature.. See we share a belief that they were once angels in heaven. That they know God's nature.. I just happen to believe the words of James in this matter.. "GOD IS ONE!" I am sorry you can't seem to understand..

Because this is a strong belief of mormonism that 1/3 of the host of heaven followed Lucifer and became devils why are you denying that they would KNOW the nature of God? I am not really gifted in discernment but it doesn't take a mind reader to see that all you are doing is trying to cause trouble. You are defending or even trying to teach mormonism you are just being contrary..


When you finally understand the meaning of our teachings ---Yeah, your teachings seem to be that we shouldn't believe what the Bible says--instead, we should believe what YOU CLAIM it really MEANT.

I claim that the devils know that God is One.. You deny that.. After I have showed you both by the Bible and in mormon doctrine that the devils were in heaven with God it is you that doesn't seem to want to believe either.. Have you like Bert become a law unto yourself? If so please explain real mormon doctrine to us because you are not measuring up to the Bible or to Joseph Smith.. IHS jim

[Mesenja]

No,James is saying that Abraham was forensically justified by faith and that this faith was vindicated by his works.





James 2:20-24

20 But are you willing to recognize,you foolish fellow,that faith without works is dead?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar ?
22 You see that faith was working with his works,and as a result of the works,faith was perfected;
23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says,"AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD,AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS," and he was called the friend of God.
24 You see that a man isjustified by works and not by faith alone.

[nrajeff]

I have shown you with Biblical proof for what I said and stand by it being accurate..
--I am the one who quoted the Bible verse about the devils believing. I stand by IT being more accurate than you are.


Mormonism teaches that the devils were in heaven with the Father at one time..


James said that they have faith that God is one..
---I am sorry, you will need to quote THAT verse--the one says that the devils have faith. If they have faith, shouldn't that alone save them?


You must be in agreement with me that they have knowledge of God and His nature..
--I don't really believe that they are Trinitarians. I reckon they have an ACCURATE knowledge that God, Jesus, and the HS are each a deity in His own right.


You disagree with James that He is one, but mormonism still holds that these devils would have knowledge of God's nature.
--No, I disagree with TRINITARIANS who believe that the 3 Persons are literelly one being. I don't disagree with St. James, since he never said they were one being.


In my original post on this subject I said that the devils both believe and have knowledge of God's nature..
---Checking....


See it's not that the devils believe is God and choose not to obey Him.. It's that they KNOW that God is one and they tremble!!
(Post 735)

I can't find the post you are talking about, where you said "the devils both believe and have knowledge of God's nature."


Because this is a strong belief of mormonism that 1/3 of the host of heaven followed Lucifer and became devils why are you denying that they would KNOW the nature of God?
--I am not denying it. I am just quoting the Bible and wondering why you disagreed with it.

[Father_JD]

And WHY have you ****n off my verse by verse exegesis of the relevant p***ages in James wherein I demonstrate from the CONTEXT that you're in error?

[Mesenja]

That is why one MUST see in these two teachings how men sees faith and how God sees it. God knows the heart. We don't need to show Him our faith at all.. He knows all along if it is a true and living faith or merely a head belief or a feeling one that makes no changes within our hearts..

As humans we can't do this. We can only see who a person really is by the way they act. This is very telling when James says "Show me your faith without your works and I will show you my faith by my works." Paul taught that this God given faith by which His grace is accessed has good works built into it by that same God who gives us the faith in the first place.



1. James and Paul quote from Genesis 15:6,and must have the same interpretation of the verse or risk contradicting each other.

2. If James had a different interpretation of the word justified then Paul then what he said in James 2:24 would make no sense.

3. Nowhere in the New Testament are we ever said to be justified before men.

[Father_JD]

1. James and Paul quote from Genesis 15:6,and must have the same interpretation of the verse or risk contradicting each other.

2. If James had a different interpretation of the word justified then Paul then what he said in James 2:24 would make no sense.

3. Nowhere in the New Testament are we ever said to be justified before men.


1. They DO have the same interpretation. It's you who are forcing them into a contradiction because of your unbiblical Mormon belief.

2. James has the same interpretation or understanding of the word, "justified". You misunderstand him to mean that works are also a causal agent in justification when he's identifying the KIND OF FAITH WHICH SAVES ONE.

3. Nonsense. Jesus said that "wisdom is JUSTIFIED by her children".

[Mesenja]

1. They DO have the same interpretation. It's you who are forcing them into a contradiction because of your non biblical Mormon belief.



No if James interprets the meaning of the word justification in Genesis 15:6 to mean a vindication or justification before men he is contradicting Paul.





2. James has the same interpretation or understanding of the word,"justified". You misunderstand him to mean that works are also a causal agent in justification when he's identifying the KIND OF FAITH WHICH SAVES ONE.



No if James interprets the word justification to mean a vindication or justification before men then what he said in James 2:24 would make no sense.



James 2:24

24 You see that a man is justified [vindicated or justified before men] by works and not by faith alone.


Faith alone would also have to be non-salvific,and only vindicative.







3. Nonsense. Jesus said that "wisdom is JUSTIFIED by her children".



The word "justified" in Luke 7:35 is metaphorical. It is not metaphorical in James 2:21-25.

[Mesenja]

Did God need to see Abraham's works before He called him to be the man whom which He choose to bring salvation to all men through? No. IHS Jim




Genesis 22:11-12

11 But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said,"Abraham, Abraham !" And he said,"Here I am."
12 He said,"Do not stretch out your hand against the lad,and do nothing to him;for now I know that you fear God,since you have not withheld your son,your only son,from Me."

[Father_JD]

Genesis 22:11-12

11 But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said,"Abraham, Abraham !" And he said,"Here I am."
12 He said,"Do not stretch out your hand against the lad,and do nothing to him;for now I know that you fear God,since you have not withheld your son,your only son,from Me."

Thanks for demonstrating not only Mormon obdurateness, but lack of any hermeneutical sophistication and a mind-numbing wooden literalness which discounts both figurative and anthropomorphic language! :eek:

You've just demoted ALMIGHTY GOD from being OMNISCIENT (which the Bible DOES teach regarding the BIBLICAL GOD) to the ****-poor idol of JS' imagination.

But LDS don't make God in man's image, huh? :rolleyes:

I really pity you, man. You believe in a "god" who's being caught off-guard all the time, taken by complete surprise...a KNOW-NOTHING DEITY and to think you worship this being. Tsk.

[nrajeff]

Thanks for demonstrating not only Mormon obdurateness, but lack of any hermeneutical sophistication and a mind-numbing wooden literalness which discounts both figurative and anthropomorphic language! :eek:
---Where is YOUR sophistication when someone tries to show you that Ezek. 37 could be figurative of the records of two different branches of Israel? Don't you all of sudden you go into wooden literalist mode there?


You've just demoted ALMIGHTY GOD from being OMNISCIENT (which the Bible DOES teach regarding the BIBLICAL GOD) to the ****-poor idol of JS' imagination.
--First, show that JS taught that God is not omniscient. Second, show us why we should believe that Jesus was lying when He claimed (it's in the Bible, BTW) to be less-then-omniscient.


But LDS don't make God in man's image, huh? :rolleyes:
---I would argue that it's CALVINISTS who are more guilty of that: They made God into a petty, jealous, vindictive, capricious tyrant, just like they had lots of experience with among their own civilization.


I really pity you, man. You believe in a "god" who's being caught off-guard all the time, taken by complete surprise...a KNOW-NOTHING DEITY and to think you worship this being.
--Given the choice between:

1. one that is absolutely omniscient and omnipotent but tyrannical, and

2. one that is slightly less omniscient and omnipotent, but who is fair and kind, there is only one of the two who deserves worship, and it ain't the one behind Door Number One.



I urge you to switch your choice ASAP.

[Billyray]

2. one that is slightly less omniscient and omnipotent, but who is fair and kind, there is only one of the two who deserves worship, and it ain't the one behind Door Number

So if God does not conform to how you expect Him to be then he is not worthy of your worship? Isn't that just making up a god in your own mind?

[nrajeff]

So if God does not conform to how you expect Him to be then he is not worthy of your worship?
--Well, YOU expect God to be an amorphous, capricious tyrant with a 3-way personality disorder, and if God doesn't conform to that, do YOU consider Him worthy of YOUR worship?



Isn't that just making up a god in your own mind?
---Isn't that what Calvinism's Trinity is?

The answer is: YES, I DO have high standards for God: He'd better have better wisdom, fairness, and ethics than humans have, or else why should I think He should be worshiped? That would just be illogical, to want to worship a being of a lower character than WE have.

"But He is more POWERFUL and KNOWS MORE stuff than you do, and He can be in two places at the same time!"

That has got to be among the WORST reasons why a being should be worshiped.

[James Banta]

[nrajeff;67687]--I am the one who quoted the Bible verse about the devils believing. I stand by IT being more accurate than you are.

Good because I am NOT inerrant as the Bible is.. It is good news that you are now ready to turn against the teachings of Smith and believe Jesus instead that the Lord our God is ONE LORD.. Not three, not billions on billions of Gods, just one.. You finally are caughting up to devils believe, what they KNOW..


---I am sorry, you will need to quote THAT verse--the one says that the devils have faith. If they have faith, shouldn't that alone save them?

They also have works should that save them? The p***age doesn't say that the devils have faith at all now does it? It says they believe that God is one.. You jumped all over me for using the word know when I showed you that they DO KNOW according to mormon beliefs.. And then you changing that believing that God is one is having faith in Jesus.. There seems to be a LOG in your eye..


--I don't really believe that they are Trinitarians. I reckon they have an ACCURATE knowledge that God, Jesus, and the HS are each a deity in His own right.

All I am saying is what is taught in the Bible the Devils were angelic at one time and fell from the presence of God.. That they believe that God is One and they tremble..


--No, I disagree with TRINITARIANS who believe that the 3 Persons are literelly one being. I don't disagree with St. James, since he never said they were one being.

James said that even the devils know what you reject.. That is what I am saying, that is what you say you believe in one breath and deny in the next..


I can't find the post you are talking about, where you said "the devils both believe and have knowledge of God's nature."

Just be honest.. You don't need to go look it up unless all you want to do here is cause trouble.. That would be TROLLING and against the rules you wouldn't do that.. So being honest tell me that mormonism doesn't teach that even the devils were in the presence of God at one time.. That being established by your honesty they would KNOW of the nature of God.. So saying that they believe God is One or they know that God is one is the same thing according to James 2:19..


--I am not denying it. I am just quoting the Bible and wondering why you disagreed with it.

It's right there in Abr. 3:28. Lucifer and the many that followed him became Satan and his angels or the devil, No? That is mormonism the Bible says that Lucifer and his angels were cast out after having Fought against God (Rev 12:7-9).. Because they were in heaven they would KNOW that God is One.. That isn't faith it's knowledge.. No were is it said that we are saved by Knowledge it says we are saved by faith.. Your denial that James taught that faith saves and works manifests that faith is way outside his message.. IHS jim

[Father_JD]

No if James interprets the meaning of the word justification in Genesis 15:6 to mean a vindication or justification before men he is contradicting Paul.




No if James interprets the word justification to mean a vindication or justification before men then what he said in James 2:24 would make no sense.




Faith alone would also have to be non-salvific,and only vindicative.





The word "justified" in Luke 7:35 is metaphorical. It is not metaphorical in James 2:21-25.




Tell me WHY you've chosen to IGNORE my line by line exegesis of the latter part of James 1 and ALL of chapter 2 in my two part threads:

"Can you lead a Mormon to scripture and make him THINK CONTEXTUALLY" ??


Is it because you know you can't BS anyone with Mormon misinterpretation?

This is the last post on this thread because I'm working on an old computer (I'm in North Africa for cryingoutloud!) and with over 800 posts, it takes this old jalopy of a computer several MINUTES to download each reply, painfully one by one.

So...GO to my two threads and argue with me there, ok? ;)

[nrajeff]

Good because I am NOT inerrant as the Bible is..
--Bad News for Jim Time: Neither you NOR the Bible is error-free. I admit that the Bible possibly has less errors than you do, though.


They also have works should that save them?
---I dunno--does the Bible really say the devils do GOOD works? Or is that more of your errant Bible-quoting?


The p***age doesn't say that the devils have faith at all now does it?
---That's what I always thought, until YOU started claiming that it DOES say they have faith. Here, let me quote you:
James said that they have faith that God is one..


It says they believe that God is one..
--Yeah, and the LDS ALSO believe that God is (metaphorically) one, but mere belief isn't enough to bring grace into effect on a person. The person ALSO needs to OBEY GOD. Which is something that the LDS think is pretty important, but apparently the devils (and maybe Calvinists) don't think is a big deal.


You jumped all over me for using the word know when I showed you that they DO KNOW according to mormon beliefs.. And then you changing that believing that God is one is having faith in Jesus.. There seems to be a LOG in your eye..
---Whatever is in my eye, it's seeing you misquote the Bible.


James said that even the devils know what you reject.. -----Good, because what THEY "know" got them in trouble with God. Maybe if I reject everything THEY stand for, I will be in good shape.


Just be honest.. You don't need to go look it up unless all you want to do here is cause trouble..
---But the HONEST thing to do IS to look it up so that you can't claim that I misquoted you when I show that your claims are false.


That would be TROLLING and against the rules you wouldn't do that..
--So you're claiming that if you make an ***ertion about what the Bible claims, and I look it up to prove that the Bible doesn't say what you ***erted that it claims, that I am breaking a rule? Hello, James: This isn't Carm. WM doesn't HAVE that rule you're thinking of.

[James Banta]

[nrajeff;67782]--Bad News for Jim Time: Neither you NOR the Bible is error-free. I admit that the Bible possibly has less errors than you do, though.

You made the unsupported claim that both of us are in error so let me help you take this to it's ultimate conclusion:

"IS SO, IS NOT, IS SO, IS NOT..." Now is you want to still make the claim this time us some evidence to prove your point. Let me warn you however I am looking at the message of the Bible not the wording of that message. you will have to show where, with evidence, that that message is corrupt.. As for me you are going to have to show where I disagree with that biblical message.. Good luck..

---I dunno--does the Bible really say the devils do GOOD works? Or is that more of your errant Bible-quoting?

Yes is a way it does.. But maybe you won't see it..

2 Cor 11:13-15
For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
If they are transforming themselves into ministers of righteousness, then their works would also mimic works of righteousness.. But it would seem that those would be evil still there to make themselves look to be something they are not.. The ends of such works are the Lake of Fire.. So any work that tends to exalt a man instead of lifting up Jesus are such works.. Look good but are not the works of righteousness.


--Yeah, and the LDS ALSO believe that God is (metaphorically) one, but mere belief isn't enough to bring grace into effect on a person. The person ALSO needs to OBEY GOD. Which is something that the LDS think is pretty important, but apparently the devils (and maybe Calvinists) don't think is a big deal.

As James says.. Saving faith works, and as Paul says, works do not bring saving faith. God has no need to see your temple recommend or ***hing receipts. He doesn't need to see the neighborhood widow's sidewalks, cleared after each winters snow storm, or her lawn freshly cut and trimmed each week to see your faith.. I do and for those I see doing that with a oral testimony of Jesus also proclaimed to the world I see a Christian indeed. But what of the old man or woman who can barely move? What if the give me just that testimony of Jesus. I trust that God is in them and they give His love to all they meet.. Both meet the qualifications to become children of God.. But if the hold the Garden Gnome to be their Jesus that are as lost as the worst serial murderer that has ever walked the earth..


---Whatever is in my eye, it's seeing you misquote the Bible.

It's using terms like this that pot that LOG is your eye.. You seem to see the speck that you call misquotes in mine but then you quote Ezekiel 37 the way you do.. You won't even believe that God's interpretation is even close to the real meaning of the p***age.. This deny of yours could put us right back into that "IS SO, IS NOT" kind of argument.. I have shown where your interpretation is totally different than what God said it was you have only told me that I am wrong, without any authority to back up what you are insisting is the real interpretation.. That sound like you have a log and I have a speck to me..


--So you're claiming that if you make an ***ertion about what the Bible claims, and I look it up to prove that the Bible doesn't say what you ***erted that it claims, that I am breaking a rule? Hello, James: This isn't Carm. WM doesn't HAVE that rule you're thinking of.

You showed no interpretation that I have given that you proved wrong.. Mainly because in the case of the Ezekiel p***age I gave no interpretation but used God's instead. In the Isaiah p***age again I didn't interpret the p***age at all just said that neither the learned or the unlearned could read the book.. It is Smith that made an interpretation of that p***age not me..

I am not saying I never interpret scripture I just haven't done so in these two p***ages.. It is your religion that has done so.. You wish to follow the interpretation given by men, I am using the interpretation given by God.. And you call mine wrong.. Can you spell "Gullible" (The quality of readily believing information, truthful or otherwise, usually to an absurd extent.)? IHS jim

[Mesenja]

Tell me WHY you've chosen to IGNORE my line by line exegesis of the latter part of James 1 and ALL of chapter 2 in my two part threads:

"Can you lead a Mormon to scripture and make him THINK CONTEXTUALLY" ??


Is it because you know you can't BS anyone with Mormon misinterpretation?

This is the last post on this thread because I'm working on an old computer (I'm in North Africa for crying ou tloud!) and with over 800 posts, it takes this old jalopy of a computer several MINUTES to download each reply, painfully one by one.

So...GO to my two threads and argue with me there, OK? ;)



I am not avoiding posting on your thread. It is just that I am busy refuting your other Calvinist claptrap you post elsewhere. You will do no better defending your position.

[Billyray]

--Well, YOU expect God to be an amorphous. . .
I don't make up a false god in my own head to suit my needs or wishes like you do. That is the difference Jeff.

[nrajeff]

I don't make up a false god in my own head to suit my needs or wishes like you do. That is the difference Jeff.

---I can accept that you didn't make up the god of Trinicalvitarianism---you just latched onto it. It was some OTHER misguided soul who made it up.

[Mesenja]

I don't make up a false god in my own head to suit my needs or wishes like you do. That is the difference Jeff.



He was taught the true nature of God. Therefore it follows that he had no need to make up a false god according to his needs or wishes.

[Billyray]

He was taught the true nature of God.

Really? Then it wouldn't be too hard for you to substantiate some of your beliefs about god for us in the Bible. Where can I read about god once being a man, or that god is married, or that god has celestial sex?

[Russianwolfe]

Really? Then it wouldn't be too hard for you to substantiate some of your beliefs about god for us in the Bible. Where can I read about god once being a man,


Not part of the nature of God. This would be history.


or that god is married,

Not part of the nature of God. This would be his status.


or that god has celestial sex?

Again, not part of the nature of God.

Three strikes and you're out. Thank you for playing. Sorry, there are no parting gifts.

Marvin

[Billyray]

Three strikes and you're out. Thank you for playing. Sorry, there are no parting gifts.

Marvin

Marvin, does it bother you that you can't defend you position from the Bible?

[Russianwolfe]

Marvin, does it bother you that you can't defend you position from the Bible?

Why would it? You made an obvious error and I pointed it out. Does that require the Bible?

Marvin

[Billyray]

Why would it? You made an obvious error and I pointed it out. Does that require the Bible?

Marvin

Marvin, please point out for me where you can support your belief that God was once a man, is married, or has celestial sex.

[Russianwolfe]

Marvin, please point out for me where you can support your belief that God was once a man, is married, or has celestial sex.

First you present the scriptures that prove that this is doctrine of the LDS Church. I don't need to defend someone's speculation or a claim by someone who is antagonistic.

Marvin

[Billyray]

Why?
Marvin

Why? Because I am trying to reach out to you Marvin and show you that Mormonism is not Biblical.

[Billyray]

First you present the scriptures that prove that this is doctrine of the LDS Church.
Marvin
Are you trying to pretend that you don't believe the facts that I posted? In the old days LDS would defend what they believe, now they use plausible deniability. Oh how things change.

[Mesenja]

Are you trying to pretend that you don't believe the facts that I posted? In the old days LDS would defend what they believe,now they use plausible . Oh how things change.



Are you trying to pretend that you believe the facts that you made up?

[Billyray]

Are you trying to pretend that you believe the facts that you made up?

Are you denying that you believe these things as well?

[Mesenja]

Are you denying that you believe these things as well?



When you come up with the scriptural proof let us know.

[akaSeerone]

When you come up with the scriptural proof let us know.
You only continue to make yourself look foolish by not answering Billy's question especially considering that Billy was a better Mormon than any Mormon on this board could ever hope to be and he knows exactly what Mormonism teaches.

Thank God that Billy has put all that Mormon nonsense behind him and is now securely in the Kingdom of God and his Salvation is ***ured, another thing you pagan lost souls can only wish you had and can have if you repent or burn.

Seems like a no brainier to me, so whatcha waiting for?

Your pride stopping you?

Andy

[Billyray]

When you come up with the scriptural proof let us know.

Mesenja, maybe you don't really believe those things. If so I applaud you. Are you denying that you hold those positions?

[Mesenja]

http://***lol.kerrolisaa.com/1/5077.jpg

[Billyray]

Does it sound like a no brainer?


Deleted lighthearted comment--Didn't want M to take it the wrong way.

[Billyray]

Marvin, please point out for me where you can support your belief that God was once a man, is married, or has celestial sex.


Are you trying to pretend that you believe the facts that you made up?

When you come up with the scriptural proof let us know.
Lets start with the first one. God was once a man. The first reference is from the LDS Ensign. The second reference is from Lorenzo Snow the 5th President of the LDS Church.

1. Joseph Smith Jr., “The King Follett Sermon,” Ensign, Apr 1971, 13–14
God an Exalted Man
I will go back to the beginning before the world was, to show what kind of a being God is. What sort of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the earth, for I am going to prove it to you by the Bible, and to tell you the designs of God in relation to the human race, and why He interferes with the affairs of man.

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

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

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


2. Lorenzo Snow couplet
"As man is God once was, as God is man may be."

[Russianwolfe]

Are you trying to pretend that you don't believe the facts that I posted? In the old days LDS would defend what they believe, now they use plausible deniability. Oh how things change.

Most of what you have ask me to defend is nothing more than speculation. So why should I defend someone else's speculation? It is not doctrine. This I know. But maybe you can cite some verses that would declare otherwise? So show me that these things are doctrine, and then I will see if those doctrines have comparable citations in the Bible. But until you prove this, you are arguing from a false premise. And if you have a false premise then you cannot have anything other than a false conclusion. And I have no responsibility to defend your false conclusion.

Marvin

[Russianwolfe]

You only continue to make yourself look foolish by not answering Billy's question especially considering that Billy was a better Mormon than any Mormon on this board could ever hope to be and he knows exactly what Mormonism teaches.


Funny, I can remember several times that the real LDS have contradicted both you and Billy on what is real doctrine and what is speculation.

I ***ure you that what Billy posted was just speculation because there are no scriptures that I am aware of that make these things doctrrine or even beliefs. Just because you say it is doctrine doesn't make it doctrine. And just because you say I should believe it doesn't mean I actually do.

So until you can come up with verses to support your claim that these things are doctrines, there is no need to defend them. I am not responsible for someone else's speculation.




Thank God that Billy has put all that Mormon nonsense behind him and is now securely in the Kingdom of God and his Salvation is ***ured, another thing you pagan lost souls can only wish you had and can have if you repent or burn.


Like I said, just because you said it doesn't make it so.




Seems like a no brainier to me, so whatcha waiting for?

Your pride stopping you?

Andy

Doesn't take pride to know that something is not doctrine. And it doesn't take much of a brain to spot speculation.

Sorry to disappoint you Andy but you got nothing here. No doctrine, and no beliefs (which should be based on some kind of scripture). You got nothing.

Marvin

[Billyray]

Most of what you have ask me to defend is nothing more than speculation. So why should I defend someone else's speculation?
Marvin
Marvin I gave you two quotes from your leaders that support the belief that God was once a man. The first quote was from Joseph Smith printed in the Ensign. The second quote was from Lorenzo Snow the 5th LDS prophet. Both quotes agree with my statement. Are you saying the Joseph Smith, the Ensign, and Lorenzo Snow are all teaching false doctrine?

[Russianwolfe]

Marvin I gave you two quotes from your leaders that support the belief that God was once a man. The first quote was from Joseph Smith printed in the Ensign. The second quote was from Lorenzo Snow the 5th LDS prophet. Both quotes agree with my statement. Are you saying the Joseph Smith, the Ensign, and Lorenzo Snow are all teaching false doctrine?

I read your quotes. But I require scripture since that determines whether it is doctrine or not. And I don't have to defend anything but the doctrine.

And you can stop with the strawman arguments. I am not saying anything or accusing anybody of false doctrrine. I don't have to. If it is not in the scriptures, then it is not doctrine, not matter who said it.

So your attempt to get me to argue non-doctrinal matters won't work. If it is not doctrine I don't have to defend it. Period.

Marvin

[Billyray]

If it is not in the scriptures, it is not doctrine.

That is a complete copout Marvin. That is your old trick saying that we don't really believe something unless it is in our Standard Works. Give me a break. And you expect thinking people to buy into this silly shell game of yours? What really stands out is that you did not even attempt to answer my question. I will repeat it again.

Marvin I gave you two quotes from your leaders that support the belief that God was once a man. The first quote was from Joseph Smith printed in the Ensign. The second quote was from Lorenzo Snow the 5th LDS prophet. Both quotes agree with my statement. Are you saying the Joseph Smith, the Ensign, and Lorenzo Snow are all teaching false doctrine?

[Billyray]

I read your quotes. But I require scripture since that determines whether it is doctrine or not. And I don't have to defend anything but the doctrine.
Marvin

I would like to hear a denial on your part to verify if your truly do not believe what I stated.

Do you deny that God was once a man?

Do you deny that God is married?

Do you deny that God and his wife procreated in heaven to produce spiritual children?

[Russianwolfe]

That is a complete copout Marvin. That is your old trick saying that we don't really believe something unless it is in our Standard Works. Give me a break. And you expect thinking people to buy into this silly shell game of yours? What really stands out is that you did not even attempt to answer my question. I will repeat it again.

I don't have to answer your question. As I have said before, I don't have to defend someone else's speculation.

It is not a copout. You refuse to believe anything that is outside of the Bible, don't you? Just the same, I don't have to believe anything that is outside of the standard works. And yet, here you are attempting to force me to defend something that is not in the scriptures!! Why is that. Don't I have the same privileges as you do? Don't I have the right to declare the standard by which I determine what is and is not doctrine? And yet, you are attempting to tell me what is supose to be my doctrine or belief and demanding that I defend it. I tell you straight, I don't have to defend someone else's speculation. I don't buy it and won't let you sell it.

Why don't you tell me why I should have to defend something that is not doctrine? And why you don't?

Marvin

[Russianwolfe]

I would like to hear a denial on your part to verify if your truly do not believe what I stated.

Do you deny that God was once a man?

Do you deny that God is married?

Do you deny that God and his wife procreated in heaven to produce spiritual children?


No comment.

I have privately held beliefs, but I do not have to reveal them to you. As I have stated before, I don't have to defends someone else's speculation.

Marvin

[Billyray]

No comment.

I have privately held beliefs, but I do not have to reveal them to you. As I have stated before, I don't have to defends someone else's speculation.

Marvin

Because you believe all of the things that I stated and you know it. You are simply using "plausible deniability" like I predicted you would do.

BTW, those beliefs are not private. I gave you two quotes from two of your prophets that clearly state that God was once a man. This is no secret.

[nrajeff]

Because you believe all of the things that I stated and you know it.
---Well, now what have we here--now you're claiming to know what every LDS person believes--even the ones who refuse to tell you what they believe?

But I thought you said that you CAN'T know, because you admitted that LDS are "all over the map" regarding their individual beliefs--they don't all conform to what SLC teaches, proving they are not brainwashed to all believe the same thing.

NOW you're switching back to the "I know what all LDS believe" junk?
Does your accusation change every other day? Lessee, today is Wednesday, so it's "Billy claims all LDS believe the same thing and he knows what they believe" day.

So tomorrow will be "LDS beliefs vary with each individual member" day?

This is good comedy.


BTW, those beliefs are not private. I gave you two quotes from two of your prophets that clearly state that God was once a man. This is no secret
---Um, I think what Marvin meant was that whether or not he personally subscribes to the non-canonical conclusions that other people have believed, is Marvin's business. It's not that those non-canonical beliefs have never been publicized. Sheesh. If you exegete the Bible as accurately as you exegete Forum posts, it's no wonder you have some mistaken beliefs about God and about salvation.

[Billyray]

---Well, now what have we here--now you're claiming to know what every LDS person believes--even the ones who refuse to tell you what they believe?



I would like to hear a denial on your part to verify if your truly do not believe what I stated.

Do you deny that God was once a man?

Do you deny that God is married?

Do you deny that God and his wife procreated in heaven to produce spiritual children?

No comment.

I have privately held beliefs, but I do not have to reveal them to you. As I have stated before, I don't have to defends someone else's speculation.

Marvin

Because you believe all of the things that I stated and you know it. You are simply using "plausible deniability" like I predicted you would do.

Jeff, if you read the posts you would already know that I DID ask Marvin what he believed. He simply refused to answer my questions. The reason? Plausible deniability. But I will give Marvin a chance to prove me wrong and tell me he does not believe that god was once a man if he so chooses.

[Billyray]

---Um, I think what Marvin meant was that whether or not he personally subscribes to the non-canonical conclusions that other people have believed, is Marvin's business. It's not that those non-canonical beliefs have never been publicized. Sheesh. If you exegete the Bible as accurately as you exegete Forum posts, it's no wonder you have some mistaken beliefs about God and about salvation.

Now your turn Jeff

Do you believe that god was once a man?

[Mesenja]

Now your turn Jeff. Do you believe that god was once a man?

Do you believe that Jesus was once a man?

[Billyray]

Do you believe that Jesus was once a man?
No I do not believe that God the Father was ever a man on another planet like the LDS church teaches.

[Mesenja]

Do you believe that Jesus was once a man?
No I do not believe that God the Father was ever a man on another planet like the Latter-day Saint church teaches.


One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?

Did you guess which thing was not like the others?
Did you guess which thing just doesn't belong?
If you guessed this one is not like the others,
Then you're absolutely...right!

[Billyray]

Did you understand the question?

I completely understood that you changed the question that we had been discussing as a diversion. We were talking about the LDS belief that God the Father was once a man. In fact here is your reply



Cite the scriptures Billy
Are you trying to pretend that you believe the facts that you made up?

Notice how silly your response is by saying that I pretended to make up the fact. I provided two separate quotes from your own prophets that support my position. Now your are trying the old bait and switch to try and recover from your previous misstep. What a joke.

[Billyray]

Delete post

[Mesenja]

I completely understood that you changed the question that we had been discussing as a diversion. We were talking about the Latter-day Saint belief that God the Father was once a man.






Notice how silly your response is by saying that I pretended to make up the fact. I provided two separate quotes from your own prophets that support my position. Now your are trying the old bait and switch to try and recover from your previous misstep. What a joke.



You understood my question yet you gave me a completely off topic answer. I am glad that it is nothing more serious then a perceived lack of comprehension on my part. I will repeat the question that I gave you. Can you give me the courtesy of a yes or no answer?


Do you believe that Jesus was once a man?

[Billyray]

You understood my question yet you gave me a completely off topic answer.

Because this whole time we were talking about God the Father. Didn't you even realize this when you made your statement "Are you trying to pretend that you believe the facts that you made up?"?

BTW do you believe that God the Father was once a man? You never answered this question.

[Billyray]

He was taught the true nature of God. . .

Really? Then it wouldn't be too hard for you to substantiate some of your beliefs about god for us in the Bible. Where can I read about god once being a man, or that god is married, or that god has celestial sex?

Are you trying to pretend that you believe the facts that you made up?


Lets start with the first one. God was once a man. The first reference is from the LDS Ensign. The second reference is from Lorenzo Snow the 5th President of the LDS Church.

1. Joseph Smith Jr., “The King Follett Sermon,” Ensign, Apr 1971, 13–14
God an Exalted Man
I will go back to the beginning before the world was, to show what kind of a being God is. What sort of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the earth, for I am going to prove it to you by the Bible, and to tell you the designs of God in relation to the human race, and why He interferes with the affairs of man.

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

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

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


2. Lorenzo Snow couplet
"As man is God once was, as God is man may be."

Mesenja, don't try and change the subject.

You asked for support, I gave you two references above.

Do you believe Joseph Smith, the Ensign, and Lorenzo Snow are teaching true principles about God the Father was once a man?

[Mesenja]

Because this whole time we were talking about God the Father. Didn't you even realize this when you made your statement "Are you trying to pretend that you believe the facts that you made up?"? By the way do you believe that God the Father was once a man? You never answered this question.



You believed that I gave an off topic question in an attempt to divert the topic under discussion. In response to this you gave an off topic reply in an attempt to divert my question. Let me make my own argument Billy.

[Billyray]

You believed that I gave an off topic question in an attempt to divert the topic under discussion. In response to this you gave an off topic reply in an attempt to divert my question.

You did give a diversionary question to the subject that we were speaking about and I did not let you get away with changing the subject. Do you really think that you can divert away from the subject and nobody will notice? Maybe in Mormonland it works but not here.

[nrajeff]

Jeff, if you read the posts you would already know that I DID ask Marvin what he believed.
--Did I SAY you never asked? No. So why are you even saying what you're saying? It makes no sense.


He simply refused to answer my questions. The reason? Plausible deniability.
--Oh, so NOW, besides you thinking you know what his beliefs are, you claim to know the reason WHY he didn't answer? What a laugh.

[Billyray]

--Oh, so NOW, besides you thinking you know what his beliefs are, you claim to know the reason WHY he didn't answer? What a laugh.

I have asked both you and Marvin what you believe with respect to god the Father once being a man. I would love to know the answer, but thus far you both have refused to answer. What is the big secret? Do you think that if you answer your programming will begin to unfold?

[nrajeff]

I have asked both you and Marvin what you believe with respect to god the Father once being a man. I would love to know the answer
---So today you're claiming to NOT already know the answer? This IS Thursday, after all, so it seems my "every other day" hypothesis might be correct...

(Tuesday and Thursday: "LDS beliefs vary with each individual member" day)


but thus far you both have refused to answer.
---- Proverbs 26:4
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.


What is the big secret? Do you think that if you answer your programming will begin to unfold?
---You're off your schedule: Today is Thursday, so you're supposed to switch from "All LDS are programmed to believe the same thing" to "Beliefs vary with each individual member." You can't use the "programmed/brainwashed" accusation until tomorrow.
Maybe you can hang a calendar over your computer, and label the days you're reversing your attacks. Being organized can help the novice Self-apointed Attacker of LDS attack more efficiently and keep his embarr***ing mistakes to a minimum.

[Mesenja]

Billy I am not trying to change the subject. I am drawing a comparison which is the basis for my argument. Let me rephrase my question for you. Do you believe that Jesus is inseparably true God and true man who,without ceasing to be God and Lord,became a man and our brother? If you do not have any objections to this then you have no basis for objecting that God was once a man.

[Mesenja]

Really? Then it wouldn't be too hard for you to substantiate some of your beliefs about god for us in the Bible. Where can I read about god once being a man,or that god is married,or that god has celestial sex?



Where can I read that God has celestial sex except in anti-M* literature?

[Billyray]

---So today you're claiming to NOT already know the answer? This IS Thursday, after all, so it seems my "every other day" hypothesis might be correct...

I certainly know the answer based on what I was taught about these subjects when I was LDS. But I am asking you and Marvin your beliefs because all LDS do not have the same beliefs and often can conflict with official LDS teachings.

Was God the Father once a man who lived on another planet? Come on this is not a hard question.

[Billyray]

Billy I am not trying to change the subject. I am drawing a comparison which is the basis for my argument.

Mesenja, you are changing the subject. Lets finish the first one before we move on.

Do you believe that God the Father was once a man who lived on another planet?

[Billyray]

Where can I read that God has celestial sex except in anti-M* literature?

Is this something that you don't believe or have never been taught as an LDS member? Really? Why do you believe that this is something that I was taught while a LDS member which of course is not from A mormon literature?

[Mesenja]

Is this something that you don't believe or have never been taught as an LDS member? Really? Why do you believe that this is something that I was taught while a LDS member which of course is not from a-Mormon literature?



Tell us where else except in anti-M sources does the concept and even the terminology ever comes up of God having celestial sex? I will tell everyone interested exactly where you got this specific term. It was from the film the God Makers,produced by Jeremiah Films in 1982,and co-produced by Ed Decker and Dave Hunt.

[Billyray]

Tell us where else except in anti-M. . .
Not so fast Mesenja. Let's get the first two addressed first before we move to the third.

1. God the Father was once a man

2. God the Father is married

3. God has celestial sex with his wife

Give me your answers to 1 and 2 first before we move on. I am not going to allow you to change the subject.

[Mesenja]

In the same way that Jesus is inseparably true God and true man who,without ceasing to be God,became a man.

[Billyray]

In the same way that Jesus is inseparably true God and true man who,without ceasing to be God,became a man.

We are speaking about the LDS god the father who is a separate and distinct god. So you agree that the father was a man who lived on another planet?

[Libby]

Where can I read that God has celestial sex except in anti-M* literature?


"[God] created man, as we create our children; for there is no other process of creation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities, that is, that were, or that ever will be."
— Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 11:122..

That's pretty direct, Mesenja. How do you suppose most people would take that, if they are reading at face value? Brigham says straight up that God created man just as we create our own children. I don't think you can blame the critics for believing him.

[James Banta]

Add to this:

God lives in the family unit. He is our Father in heaven—the literal and personal Father of the spirits of all men. He begat us; we are the offspring of Heavenly Parents: we have an Eternal Father and an Eternal Mother. We were born as spirits, and we dwelt in the presence of our Eternal Parents; we lived before our mortal birth. As spirits we were in all respects as we are now save only that we were not housed in mortal bodies as is the present circumstance. Christ was the Firstborn of all the heavenly host; Lucifer was a son of the morning: each of us came into being as conscious iden***ies in our appointed order; and Christ is our Elder Brother. (Bruce R. McConkie, The Mortal Messiah, vol. 1, p. 21)

IHS jim

[Billyray]

That's pretty direct, Mesenja. How do you suppose most people would take that, if they are reading at face value? Brigham says straight up that God created man just as we create our own children. I don't think you can blame the critics for believing him.

Libby that is a good quote. Here is one in the 2010 Gospel Principles. I was holding out to get Mesenja to answer the first two before moving on.

GOSPEL PRINCIPLES 2010
“Chapter 2: Our Heavenly Family,” Gospel Principles, (2009),8–12
We Are Children of Our Heavenly Father
• What do scriptures and latter-day prophets teach us about our relationship to God?
God is not only our Ruler and Creator; He is also our Heavenly Father. All men and women are literally the sons and daughters of God. “Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal [physical] body” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith [1998], 335)."
END OF GOSPEL PRINCIPLES QUOTE


These are three points that I was taught as an LDS member. Back in the day there wasn't a push to hide these doctrine. But today it seems like these subjects are taboo and plausible deniability runs king. Deny deny deny seems to be the motto. When called out they then change the subject or use ad hominem attacks. It is par for the course.

1. God the Father was once a man
2. God the Father is married
3. God has celestial sex with his wife

[Billyray]

Celestial sex 2nd reference

"The family of God. The Mormons believe that all men were born in the spirit world of the union of the sexes, having a literal father and a literal mother before coming to this world, that the spirits are just the same in appearance as the body, that God is a married Being, has a wife at least, as Jeremiah said the angels were offering incense to the queen of heaven."
GOSPEL TRUTH: DISCOURSES AND WRITINGS OF PRESIDENT GEORGE Q. CANNON CHAPTER 10 Deity—The Mormon Conception Page 102

George Quayle Cannon (January 11, 1827 – April 12, 1901) was an early member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), and served in the First Presidency under four successive presidents of the church: Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, and Lorenzo Snow. He was the church's chief political strategist, and was dubbed "the Mormon premier" and "the Mormon Richelieu" by the press. He was also five-time Territorial Delegate from Utah.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Q._Cannon

[Billyray]

Celestial sex 3rd reference

LDS Apostle John A. Widtsoe
"Sex Among the Gods. Sex, which is indispensable on this earth for the perpetuation of the human race, is an eternal quality which has its equivalent everywhere. It is indestructible. The relationship between men and women is eternal and must continue eternally. In accordance with Gospel philosophy there are males and females in heaven. Since we have a Father, who is our God, we must also have a mother, who possesses the attributes of Godhood. This simply carries onward the logic of things earthly, and conforms with the doctrine that whatever is on this earth is simply a representation of spiritual conditions of deeper meaning than we can here fathom."
RATIONAL THEOLOGY by John A. Widtsoe Page 64

John Andreas Widtsoe (pronounced /ˈwɪtsoʊ/, 31 January 1872 – 29 November 1952) was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) from 1921 until his death. Widtsoe was also a noted author, scientist, and academician.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A._Widtsoe

[Libby]

Libby that is a good quote. Here is one in the 2010 Gospel Principles. I was holding out to get Mesenja to answer the first two before moving on.

GOSPEL PRINCIPLES 2010
“Chapter 2: Our Heavenly Family,” Gospel Principles, (2009),8–12
We Are Children of Our Heavenly Father
• What do scriptures and latter-day prophets teach us about our relationship to God?
God is not only our Ruler and Creator; He is also our Heavenly Father. All men and women are literally the sons and daughters of God. “Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal [physical] body” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith [1998], 335)."
END OF GOSPEL PRINCIPLES QUOTE


These are three points that I was taught as an LDS member. Back in the day there wasn't a push to hide these doctrine. But today it seems like these subjects are taboo and plausible deniability runs king. Deny deny deny seems to be the motto. When called out they then change the subject or use ad hominem attacks. It is par for the course.

1. God the Father was once a man
2. God the Father is married
3. God has celestial sex with his wife

That quote is even better and much more recent.

Yes, the teaching on this has become much more vague and convoluted. I was taught that the birth of our spirits, in the CK, was not exactly like human sex, but a Celestial version of it, which is unknown, as far as specifics. I even argued this version very p***ionately over on Concerned Christians..even AFTER I left the church....until Aaron Shaf brought on a bunch of quotes I had never seen. I do believe the early Saints believed that sex in the Celestial Kingdom was much like what we have here. That is a very unpopular idea, in the church, now...probably because critics have made it such an issue.

[Billyray]

Where can I read that God has celestial sex except in anti-M* literature?

Are you trying to pretend that you believe the facts that you made up?

I gave you three LDS references

1. GOSPEL PRINCIPLES 2010

2. LDS apostle George Q Cannon

3. LDS apostle John A. Widtsoe

[Billyray]

In the same way that Jesus is inseparably true God and true man who, without ceasing to be God,became a man.

The problem with your statement is that LDS do not believe that Jesus has ALWAYS been God. The LDS Jesus became a God a some point in time unlike the Christian God which has been God from everlasting to everlasting. Again just another concept that places Mormonism outside of mainstream Christianity.

[Mesenja]

The problem with your statement is that LDS do not believe that Jesus has ALWAYS been God. The LDS Jesus became a God a some point in time unlike the Christian God which has been God from everlasting to everlasting. Again just another concept that places Mormonism outside of mainstream Christianity.




This sounds suspiciously like the heresy of Sabellianism which would place you outside of mainstream Christianity.

[Libby]

This sounds suspiciously like the heresy of Sabellianism which would place you outside of mainstream Christianity.

I see nothing in Billy's statement that would indicate that.

[Mesenja]

We are speaking about the LDS God the Father who is a separate and distinct god. So you agree that the father was a man who lived on another planet?



I said that God was once a man in the same way that Jesus is inseparably true God and true man who,without ceasing to be God,became a man. There is a qualitative difference between this statement and yours.

[Billyray]

I said that God was once a man in the same way that Jesus is inseparably true God and true man who,without ceasing to be God,became a man. There is a qualitative difference between this statement and yours.

So you do believe that God the Father was a man who live on another planet?

[Billyray]

The problem with your statement is that LDS do not believe that Jesus has ALWAYS been God. The LDS Jesus became a God a some point in time unlike the Christian God which has been God from everlasting to everlasting. Again just another concept that places Mormonism outside of mainstream Christianity.
This sounds suspiciously like the heresy of Sabellianism which would place you outside of mainstream Christianity.
Can you elaborate how you came to this conclusion based on my statement?

[alanmolstad]

Billy I am not trying to change the subject. I am drawing a comparison which is the basis for my argument. Let me rephrase my question for you. Do you believe that Jesus is inseparably true God and true man who,without ceasing to be God and Lord,became a man and our brother? If you do not have any objections to this then you have no basis for objecting that God was once a man.'was once"?????

That is incorrect.
A better way to understand this is that Jesus is now and forever both God and Man in union.
equal to the father in his divine nature, equal to men in his humanity.

There will never be a time when Jesus will be less than God or less than man.
So we cant say that Jesus 'was once" a man, because he still is and will always be a man...



The Word was with God, the Word was God, the Word became flesh.
The Word never stopped being God, and the nature of God is unchanged...

But the Son has a 2nd nature...and that is his nature of being human too.

So while we believe that Jesus is God in the flesh....we dont believe that the Divine nature was changed in this, rather the Son was given a 2nd new nature that the father does not share...


So the Son is always equal to the father in his Divine nature, and now always equal to men in his human nature...

2 natures in the one person = Jesus

[MichaellS]

Foolish idea about what THE TRUE CHURCH is.. It's not the Baptists, not the Lutherans, It's not a nondenominational church.. The true Church is the body of Jesus. This is the Church that ONLY JESUS can add you to as he saves you (Acts 2:47).. Good heavens you have no idea what the Church even is! IHS jim

Dang, this bro takes the bullseye and lays it on the landmark “Rock”! Amen!

[James Banta]

Dang, this bro takes the bullseye and lays it on the landmark “Rock”! Amen!

Bless you too.. I can't take credit for the word I share. Most of it is directly from His word. I am outspoken though.. Welcome to the forum, may God use you to bring His word to the lost here as well.. We need workmen in this field. The harvest is ready.. IHS jim

[Libby]

Looks to me like there is no "harvest" here. What are you harvesting, James? This place has like three posters.

[alanmolstad]

Looks to me like there is no "harvest" here. What are you harvesting, James? This place has like three posters.
if I remember correctly, all you need is two or three gathered together...

[James Banta]

Looks to me like there is no "harvest" here. What are you harvesting, James? This place has like three posters.

And you know this how? You know how many souls lurk in the site without ever posting.. You insight is supernatural. It was Jesus that told us to pray for the Father to send workers into the fields that they are white and ready for harvest (Matthew 9:37-39). I believe Him, All I see in you in your lack of faith yet again.. IHS jim

[Libby]

if I remember correctly, all you need is two or three gathered together...

To worship, yes.

[theway]

Vlad, your statement above is completely false.

Colossians 1:16 For by him (Jesus) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:So... Going by your opinion, God the Father is a creation of Jesus Christ?

[James Banta]

So... Going by your opinion, God the Father is a creation of Jesus Christ?

That would be true if the Father and Jesus were not the same God.. If He was a separate THING then Jesus would have created Him.. Mormonism teaches that they are separates Gods so it is mormonism by the authority of this verse that would be a creation of Jesus.. IHS jim

[theway]

That would be true if the Father and Jesus were not the same God.. If He was a separate THING then Jesus would have created Him.. Mormonism teaches that they are separates Gods so it is mormonism by the authority of this verse that would be a creation of Jesus.. IHS jim
You must not believe in The Trinity Doctrine which specifically states that God The Father is NOT God the Son, and God the Son is NOT God the Father!

[James Banta]

You must not believe in The Trinity Doctrine which specifically states that God The Father is NOT God the Son, and God the Son is NOT God the Father!

Thank you for explaining a doctrine that you deny.. The trinity is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.. While they are three separate persons they are one God.. If you notice I never said that they are the same person but only the same God.. I also said that mormonism teaches three separate Gods. I guess since you didn't comment on that you agree completely that the Lords your Gods are three Lords.. So Correct me when I am wrong. When it's just a difference of opinion state yours and show me through the scripture how you are the one who is right.. This time you were wrong twice. Once about the trinity and once on silently approving of having three Gods even if only for this world.. IHS jim

[Libby]

Thank you for explaining a doctrine that you deny..

That made me laugh out loud, James. :D

Isn't that what critics of Mormonism do all the time?!

[James Banta]

That made me laugh out loud, James. :D

Isn't that what critics of Mormonism do all the time?!

Know what? I have never laughed at you at all, ever! I have taken you to the Lord and had Him take you off my mind, but never did I laugh.. Just what is so funny that a non believer explains to me a doctrine that he neither believes and by his own admission doesn't even understand? Maybe what was funny is when I explained it as the unity of the being of God existing as the Father, Son , and Holy Spirit. Maybe it was accusing him of believing that the Lords his Gods are three Lords? Maybe it was my invitation for Him to show by the scriptures that there are three Gods with whom we have to do? Please tell me how this makes you laugh? And while you are at it give some examples of the critics of Mormonism doing that all the time.. IHS jim

[Libby]

None of that made me laugh, James. I don't think I even read that far.

This, specifically, made me laugh, because it shows the double standard that critics sometimes hold. (Plus, you take yourself much too seriously)


Thank you for explaining a doctrine that you deny..

Perhaps, I'll pray for you to see that double standard, when you apply it.

[James Banta]

None of that made me laugh, James. I don't think I even read that far.

This, specifically, made me laugh, because it shows the double standard that critics sometimes hold. (Plus, you take yourself much too seriously)



Perhaps, I'll pray for you to see that double standard, when you apply it.

You go right ahead and pray to your eastern idols. See if any one of them is actually there.. I still don't understand how saying that a polytheist is going to explain the Trinity to me when he doesn't know or understand that doctrine himself is funny in any way.. I have been told many times that I have a wonderful sense of humor but this statement is not funny in any way.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

If you're going to approach this issue in this way, (which is a very poor way to do it), than cite your sources or I will delete this.


I wouldn't use those words either Jill but that doesn't make the comment false.. Smith was a con-man in that he used his position to gain support for himself and his family but lying to people about the Golden Plates. Even the three witnesses have told us they say the plates and the angel with the eyes of faith (Early Mormon Documents, vol. 2, pp. 291-292). He ignored the challenge of a self appointed given by God in Deut 18:20-22.

There is no doubt that Smith was brought into court to answer charges of "Gl***looking". Ir that he was fined for perpetrating that fraud
173

Smith also said he had more to boast of than any man and included Jesus in his statement (History of the Church Vol. 6, p. 408).. His zig-zagging on doctrine is shown in the statement he wrote for the three witness and then in his statements that there are three Gods (History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 473)..

No I don't like how these truths were stated and I would blame you for deleting them from the OP especially if you could all these referenced proofs that Smith wasn't exactly the prophet he said he was in it's place.. Thanks for your continuation of the site.. It means a lot to many of us.. IHS jim

[Libby]

You go right ahead and pray to your eastern idols. See if any one of them is actually there.. I still don't understand how saying that a polytheist is going to explain the Trinity to me when he doesn't know or understand that doctrine himself is funny in any way.. I have been told many times that I have a wonderful sense of humor but this statement is not funny in any way.. IHS jim


Well, I haven't ever prayed to anyone, except God the Father and Jesus Christ. If that's not good enough for you, I don't know what would be.

There is nothing wrong with calling someone out, if their explanation is wrong. But, simply not believing in something (as you should know) doesn't mean one doesn't understand the theology. I have known LDS who understand Orthodox Christianity better than many Christians do...and vice versa, I have known Christians who understand LDS theology better than some LDS do. So, it simply doesn't follow that "not believing" something, means you don't understand it.

You really need to humble yourself, a little, and not ***ume you are always right, just because you are a Christian.

[MichaellS]

Bless you too.. I can't take credit for the word I share. Most of it is directly from His word. I am outspoken though.. Welcome to the forum, may God use you to bring His word to the lost here as well.. We need workmen in this field. The harvest is ready.. IHS jim

Thanks Jim. If we are to be in those mutually submitted places in Him, I welcome all the outspoken corrections that might come my little foot-race fails to find. Appreciate your, Alan and several other’s presence here!!!

Hi Jill!!

God bless!

[nrajeffreturns]

There is nothing wrong with calling someone out, if their explanation is wrong. But, simply not believing in something (as you should know) doesn't mean one doesn't understand the theology. I have known LDS who understand Orthodox Christianity better than many Christians do...and vice versa, I have known Christians who understand LDS theology better than some LDS do. So, it simply doesn't follow that "not believing" something, means you don't understand it.

You really need to humble yourself, a little, and not ***ume you are always right, just because you are a Christian.

The temptation you mention can plague members of any religion, and result in atrocities. It's something we all need to be careful about.

[Libby]

The temptation you mention can plague members of any religion, and result in atrocities. It's something we all need to be careful about.

Absolutely.

[alanmolstad]

mod edit

So now the big question is, if others agree that you are either 100% true or 100% false, how do you reconcile people that hold a belief about Jesus that might not be held by others? Are they therefore in 100% error?

If a Baptist person believes that Jesus might've been married on earth, does that make him 100% in error about Jesus, on every issue, so as to merit God sending him to Hell for eternity?

mod edit - Do not start threads aimed at specific board members.
With the essentials we try our best to find unity of belief

with the non-essentials we try our best to provide room for debate , disagreements, teaching, learning, instruction, searching, seeking, and rebuking.


But with all things concerning our brothers, we try to remember that sometimes we are the only bible that the non-Christians read....so we should be known by our "love" and not necessary by our ability to always line up uniformly on every point.

[alanmolstad]

Thanks Jim. If we are to be in those mutually submitted places in Him, I welcome all the outspoken corrections that might come my little foot-race fails to find. Appreciate your, Alan and several other’s presence here!!!

Hi Jill!!

God bless!and you are welcome!

[alanmolstad]

If a Baptist person believes that Jesus might've been married on earth, does that make him 100% in error about Jesus, on every issue, so as to merit God sending him to Hell for eternity?

.

On the essentials you need unity.(salvation by Christ's death, resurrection, the trinity etc)

On the non-essentials you should allow for different points of view. (if different people married, if we should baptist kids, wine strong or weak etc)

[alanmolstad]

On the essentials you need unity.(salvation by Christ's death, resurrection, the trinity etc)

On the non-essentials you should allow for different points of view. (if different people married, if we should baptist kids, wine strong or weak etc)

still the right answer....