Did Jesus Sin?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

Ok, so you use these words interchangably, correct? God, Godhood, Godhead. To you there is no difference in the definition?

Christians agree that there is only one God.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by TheSword99

Like I said, the lds are rarely clear on any of their peculiar beliefs.

I agree and different LDS have different beliefs.

[Snow Patrol]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Christians agree that there is only one God.

Oh, Billyray, the funny thing is that you even quoted my questions in your response and didn't come near answering either of the questions. Let's try again...

"Ok, so you use these words interchangably, correct? God, Godhood, Godhead. To you there is no difference in the definition?"

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Snow Patrol

"Ok, so you use these words interchangably, correct? God, Godhood, Godhead. To you there is no difference in the definition?"

I don't use the terms Godhood or Godhead (unless specifically discussing LDS beliefs) so I don't use these terms interchangeably.

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

I don't use the terms Godhood or Godhead (unless specifically discussing LDS beliefs) so I don't use these terms interchangeably.

Like I said, the evangelicals are rarely clear on any of their peculiar beliefs. Some use multiple words interchangeably, while others don't. It makes it hard to pin them down on exactly what it is they believe in.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Like I said, the evangelicals are rarely clear on any of their peculiar beliefs. Some use multiple words interchangeably, while others don't. It makes it hard to pin them down on exactly what it is they believe in.

I gave you my answer. What exactly are you having a hard time with? BTW "Godhood" is not used in the KJV or the modern translations such as the NASB or the ESV. "Godhead" is used in the KJV but not in the modern versions such as the NASB or the ESV.

KJV
NASB

Acts 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.
Acts 17:29 “Being then the offspring of God, we aought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man.

Rom. 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Rom. 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Col. 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Col. 2:9 For in Him all the afulness of Deity dwells in bodily form,

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

I gave you my answer.

And it doesn't match up with your buddy's answer. Hence the problem.

What exactly are you having a hard time with? BTW "Godhood" is not used in the KJV or the modern translations such as the NASB or the ESV

Have you told RealFakeHair about this fact?

Acts 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.
Acts 17:29 “Being then the offspring of God, we aought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man.

Well, the divine nature is something we have the potential to partake of, according to the Bible. Is that heresy?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

And it doesn't match up with your buddy's answer. Hence the problem.

I am not sure what the big issue is. Is there a point you are trying to make?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Well, the divine nature is something we have the potential to partake of, according to the Bible. Is that heresy?

The LDS belief that you can become a god is heresy.

[alanmolstad]

Here it is....

http://www.godneversinned.com/



I dont think this idea that the Mormon god is a sinner is actually one of my Christian brother's ideas...

I think we found this stuff
I think it was an idea that Mormons have been kicking around for a while and it just suddenly showed up on the web and is now getting a lot more play

[alanmolstad]

I think the idea that the Mormon god is a sinner is an idea that many Mormons understood well, but us Christians don't really bump into at the door when sharing with a Mormon visitor.

Telling people you think your own god is a sinner is likely a bit embarr***ing to be sure.

But because of the internet this idea is getting out there to more and more Christians, and thus we see the issue raised now with Mormons.
What really has spread the word are the Mormons who enjoy posting their views on the internet.
This has allowed ideas that perhaps were not much spoken about off the Mormon reservation to now be seen and spread across the world.

It was because of such links I have seen on a different forum that is the reason I came to first learn that some Mormons were really pushing this Mormon idea that their god was a sinner.

Im not sure, but I don't think I remember even the great Walter Martin much raising this issue on his show?

I did not really have a clue about the concept of a "sinning god" before I saw a link posted that took me to a website where a Mormon theology teacher/web-writer was laying out the case for the teaching that his god could be known to be a sinner.

Right now there are a lot more websites where you can find Mormons talking about this idea....GOOGLE and BING the topic and it shows you that this issue is starting to get raised more and more on forums.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Here it is....

http://www.godneversinned.com/



I dont think this idea that the Mormon god is a sinner is actually one of my Christian brother's ideas...

I think we found this stuff
I think it was an idea that Mormons have been kicking around for a while and it just suddenly showed up on the web and is now getting a lot more play

Lets think about this.. The LDS doctrine of eternal progression teaches that that God was once a man like we are, that He lived a life that included all the LDS requirements for exaltation that includes repentance. Why would a sinless being require repentance? Still if he was a man the same as the rest of us repentance IS required. Then there is the concept that they believe they will be exalted and become a Heavenly Father to a new generation of spirit Children.. They will then become these spirit children's God, a God that had been a sinner. Since they believe that the generations of Gods are one eternal round then there are gods in the genealogy of our Father in Heaven that have been sinners even if He himself was a Christ for his world.

If all the Gods the LDS insist are in existence were all the Christs of their Father in Heaven worlds then it goes that only Jesus can be exalted.. This is a problem for LDS that demand that the Father was never a sinner. A problem that threats the very purpose for the mormon gospel. They teach that (Moses 1:39) For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to p*** the immortality and eternal life of man. Either it is possible and even probably that the Father was a sinner or it is NOT possible for the LDS to gain eternal life.. And the work and glory of their God in nothing but a lie.. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

I am not sure what the big issue is. Is there a point you are trying to make?

The point is that when you point a finger at another church and accuse their beliefs of being unclear, your own beliefs have 3 fingers pointing back at them.

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

I dont think this idea that the Mormon god is a sinner is actually one of my Christian brother's ideas...
I think we found this stuff

You think wrong IMO.

I think it was an idea that Mormons have been kicking around for a while and it just suddenly showed up on the web and is now getting a lot more play

I have been LDS for 50 years, and this "theory" never came up until some anti such as Aaron S. dreamed up this loophole.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

I have been LDS for 50 years, and this "theory" never came up until some anti such as Aaron S. dreamed up this loophole.

With the Lorenzo Snow couplet it has always been there Jeff.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

The point is that when you point a finger at another church and accuse their beliefs of being unclear, your own beliefs have 3 fingers pointing back at them.

Godhead and Godhood are terms that lds use that other Christians rarely if ever use. Since leaving Mormonism I don't think I have heard either terms used once by any other Christian.

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

With the Lorenzo Snow couplet it has always been there Jeff.

Nope. With MISINTERPRETATION of the couplet as a possibility, it has always had the POTENTIAL to be MISCONSTRUED into what Aaron misconstrued it INTO.

Suppose an anti-Trinitarian went around ambushing Trinitarians, and quoting Bible verses that could be interpreted as supporting Modalism. Verses like "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father." Then suppose that person said "With Bible verses like these, Modalism has always been there."

Would you agree with that person's claim? Or would you argue, as I did, that just because such interpretations of the verses are POSSIBLE, it doesn't mean that such a DOCTRINE is actually part of the religion ?

[Libby]

Fact is, a LOT of Orthodox Christians believe that Jesus sinned, as well.

1 in 3 Christians say Jesus Sinned

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Godhead and Godhood are terms that lds use that other Christians rarely if ever use. Since leaving Mormonism I don't think I have heard either terms used once by any other Christian.

See Post # 104. Unless you're saying that Realfakehair is not any other Christian, so his use of it doesn't count....

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

See Post # 104. Unless you're saying that Realfakehair is not any other Christian, so his use of it doesn't count....

I am saying that these terms are rarely if ever used among Christians. When discussing things with LDS these terms do come up because they are terms that you use. Another example is the term "exaltation" when referring to salvation. This is a term that LDS use that Christian rarely if ever usd.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

Fact is, a LOT of Orthodox Christians believe that Jesus sinned, as well.

1 in 3 Christians say Jesus Sinned

True Christians who have an ounce of knowledge about the Bible know that Jesus did not sin. A lot of people who claim to be Christian are not truly Christian, they are tares mixed together with the wheat.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Nope. With MISINTERPRETATION of the couplet as a possibility, it has always had the POTENTIAL to be MISCONSTRUED into what Aaron misconstrued it INTO.

Jeff if you read the Lorenzo Snow as written you come to the conclusion that the Father was just like us AND that we can become like him.

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Jeff if you read the Lorenzo Snow as written you come to the conclusion that the Father was just like us AND that we can become like him.

Except the word "just" is absent from the actual statement. By adding it, you imply that God was exactly like we are in all ways. And since one of the things we are is sinners, you can jump to the unwarranted, irresponsible conclusion that it's saying that God was once a sinner. This is the kind of misconstrued interpretation, basically extrapolation, that I was talking about in my previous post.

In context, it is fairly apparent that the way in which God was once like us, is in the area of MORTALITY.

Since LDS believe that Jesus is a lot like His Father, we could use Jesus' life as an example of the couplet being true:

As Jesus once was (mortal), mankind now is.

As Jesus now is (immortal and glorified and an heir to the Father's kingdom), mankind may become.

Those 2 statements don't require Jesus to have sinned while HE was a mortal in order to be true, so they also don't require His Father to have been a sinner when HE was mortal, in order for the statements to be true.

It's only Aaronesque people who WANT people to BELIEVE that God once sinned or that the idea exists in LDSism, who read stuff into the couplet that aren't there. Aaron's motives for misinterpreting it are obvious.

There are plenty of things that LDS actually DO believe that Aaron could attack if he wanted to. He deliberately chose this idea, that we DON'T believe, because he realized he could make some waves with it and get some attention.

An anti-Trinitarian could do similarly with a Bible statement and stir up trouble for no good reason.
"It says right in the Bible that God has wings, and that God will gather Israel like a chicken gathers her chicks. Therefore, Trinitarians believe that God is a giant chicken!"

When of course you don't believe that.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Except the word "just" is absent from the actual statement. .

"As man is God once was, as God is man may be."

So what you are saying is that God was not "As man is"

And on the flip side man may not be a god.

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

"As man is God once was, as God is man may be."

And "as" means "like" in this context. But not EXACTLY like. Not identical to. Inferring those extra words for political gainsaying, is a textbook case of eisegesis.

So what you are saying is that God was not "As man is"

What I and Pres. Snow did NOT say is that God was JUST like we are. If we'd wanted to say that, we could have.

Here is a story to help you realize the point: Billionaire Bill Gates is a man who made a fortune by having some genius ideas, and working for many years to make them pay off. Long ago, he was a high school student with little money, but now he is a billionaire. Suppose he decides to leave his son 2 billion of his money as an inheritance. His will states that if the son meets a few conditions, then he will become a billionaire, as his dad now is. Suppose the conditions are:

1. Must not have any felony convictions.
2. Must graduate from high school.

Currently, as the son now is, his dad once was (poor, and not yet a high school grad).
But as the dad now is, the son may become (a high school grad who is a billionaire)

Saying that "as the son now is, his dad once was" does not mean that the dad was EXACTLY like the son. And it doesn't mean that the son has to do exactly what the dad did to become a billionaire. The son doesn't need to have an ingenious idea and market it lucratively. All the son needs to do is some relatively easy things, and the money will be GIVEN to him.