It still bugs me

[johnd]

Isaiah 44:24 (KJV)
24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;


Colossians 1:16 (KJV)
16 For by him 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:


John 1:3 (KJV)
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

LDS teaches that there are gods many. Jesus is the son of Elohim brother of Lucifer and that none of them created the heavens and the earth. They were already here if Elohim is as LDS teaches an exalted man.

The KJV Bible proves LDS false.

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by johnd

LDS teaches that there are gods many. .

Why did God become Man, according to St. Athanasius and other early Christians?


"God became man, so that man could become ______."

Can you fill in the blank with the correct answer?

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Why did God become Man, according to St. Athanasius and other early Christians?


"God became man, so that man could become ______."

Can you fill in the blank with the correct answer?

I m told different things from different LDS sources. 1. That only the Father is God, in which case you deny the deity of Jesus and God never became man. 2. That Jesus is a god but not the only God in which case you are a polytheist and could believe that Jesus came here so we could all become Gods.. Both answers are totally unbiblical. The Bible directly answers this question..

John 1:14
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Therefore Jesus entered mortality to reveal God to man in all His grace and His truth.. To complete your question (I don't care what the writings of St. Athanasius contain) God became man, so that man could become children of God.

John 1:12
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name

IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by James Banta

I m told different things from different LDS sources. ...

Maybe, but St. Athanasius isn't an LDS source. He's the co-founder of Trinitarianism.

[MacG]

Since he is the co-founder of Trinitarianism then his use of divine had to mean something different to him than it does to TCJCLDS for to him there is no god formed either before or after the God he described.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Maybe, but St. Athanasius isn't an LDS source. He's the co-founder of Trinitarianism.

All That Trinitarianism is is a affirmation of what the Bible teaches about the nature of God.. I other words it is what God tells us about Himself.. God in the OT makes Himself clear that He is God and there are no other Gods like Him. He and He alone is God.. He taught Isaiah that He the God that knows all things doesn't know that any God like Him exists (Isaiah 44:8). But what does mormonism teach? That there are many God in exists that are as powerful or more powerful than the God that called Himself YHWH.. And more than this mormonism denies His testimony that no other God existed before Him and none will be formed after Him (Isaiah 43:10). I have even had LDS tell me that is just for this world, and yet they confirm that Jesus is the God of this world almost in the same breath as they say that the Father is the God if this world. But will insist that Jesus is a spirit child of the father and later became a God through obedience to the Father.. He was formed as a God after the Father was already God.. That violates the clear statement of God that this would never happen.. LDS insistence that Jesus is a creation of the Father and yet he became a God proves that Mormonism is NOT a Biblical religion, not of the OT or the New.. It calls God a liar and is therefore not of God..

If Jesus is God as the Bible tells us He is (John 1:1). If the Holy Spirit is God as the Bible tells us He is (Acts 5:3-4). If the Father is God as the Bible says He is (John 20:17) and there is one and only one God as the Bible says there is, then the Trinity is the only doctrine that explains the being of God.. Unlike the Modlist that would tell us that the same person is transformed into each person that is revealed is , I deny as you have so many times that Jesus wouldn't pray to Himself. And that He did again and again.. Modlism nor polytheism works when they are challenged by God's word. Only the truth that the separate Persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one essence, one nature can conform to the Biblical description of God..

So great you found a man that found a word that describes the Biblical doctrine of the unity of God. He didn't invent God's nature, just a word we can use to describe it.. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by James Banta

So great you found a man that found a word that describes the Biblical doctrine of the unity of God. He didn't invent God's nature, just a word we can use to describe it.. IHS jim

And when he said that God became man so man could become God, he was just describing a Biblical doctrine THERE, too...right?

[theway]

Originally Posted by James Banta

Today we were visiting a man in the hospital. Two very nice LDS men came in and gave the patient the elements of the LDS sacrament.. That's where I start to have trouble.. It's not that these men weren't committed to their church it is the elements themselves.. Levin bread, a symbol of sin, being the subst i tute for the body of the Lord? Mere water being used as a subst i tute for His blood? Is this a problem for anyone else? IHS jim

Don't you find it contradictory that you are saying unleaven bread is to be used because leaven is a symbol of sin; and then in the same speach tell us that wine is to be used even though wine is made by adding leaven to it?

What bugs me is you lack of understanding.
Leaven is a symbol for the Kingdom of Heaven in the Bible.
And leaven bread was used for the eucharist for the first thousand years by Christians.
Given that where do you come up with these silly notions?

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by theway

Don't you find it contradictory that you are saying unleaven bread is to be used because leaven is a symbol of sin; and then in the same speach tell us that wine is to be used even though wine is made by adding leaven to it?

What bugs me is you lack of understanding.
Leaven is a symbol for the Kingdom of Heaven in the Bible.
And leaven bread was used for the eucharist for the first thousand years by Christians.
Given that where do you come up with these silly notions?

A good, informative post.

[MacG]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

And when he said that God became man so man could become God, he was just describing a Biblical doctrine THERE, too...right?

"...clarified in his third treatise against the Arians: ``To become as the Father is impossible for us creatures.''"

As I said, a promoter of the Trinity, there is but one God, he nust have meant something different than you as a Mormon would identify with.

http://www.angelfire.com/md/mdmorris...t/DIVINIZ.html

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

And when he said that God became man so man could become God, he was just describing a Biblical doctrine THERE, too...right?

I guess Mac showed you the problems of looking at the quotes IDS.INC has taken out of context from the ECG and the reformers to help them in their perversions. Try doing that in the scripture. You won't have any success there at all.. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by MacG

"...clarified in his third treatise against the Arians: ``To become as the Father is impossible for us creatures.''"

That doesn't clarify

"God became man so that men could become gods" or "God became man so that man could become God" (translations vary)

It doesn't, for example, do anything to clarify whether to become as the SON is impossible for us creatures.

[MacG]

hate to block quote: " In several places, echoing Clement, Athanasius said that Christ became man so that man might become God, or gods, or divine, or exalted.21 What did he mean? At least once he felt ``the boldness of the formula'' and clarified in his third treatise against the Arians: ``To become as the Father is impossible for us creatures.'' ``There be one Son by nature...we too become sons, not as He in nature and truth, but according to the grace of Him that calleth, and though we are men from the earth, and yet called gods, not as the True God or His Word.... We are sons, not as the Son, as gods, not as He Himself. '' (Orat 3.19-20; Robertson 404-405). Similarly, in Orat 1.37 he briefly noted that we are children by grace, not by nature. We are like the Son ``not in essence but in sonship, which we shall partake from Him'' (De Syn 53; Robertson 479).

If we cannot be gods by nature or essence, in what way are we to be like God? ``We are as God by imitation, not by nature'' (Orat 3.20; Robertson 405). Jesus did not mean ``that we might be as God,'' but that we should imitate him (Orat 3.19; Robertson 404). ``Albeit we cannot become like God in essence, yet by progress in virtue imitate God'' (Ad Afros 7; Robertson 492)."

[nrajeffreturns]

So is that the only area where we can't be like God and Christ--in the area of essence? And by the way, isn't God, in His essence, spirit? And aren't we also essentially spirits?

What are the limits to our potential if we become, along with Christ, joint heirs of God's kingdom? What won't we be able to do or to know, given a billion years in God's presence as His students?

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

So is that the only area where we can't be like God and Christ--in the area of essence? And by the way, isn't God, in His essence, spirit? And aren't we also essentially spirits?

What are the limits to our potential if we become, along with Christ, joint heirs of God's kingdom? What won't we be able to do or to know, given a billion years in God's presence as His students?

God's essence is DIVINE Creator, or is sinful creation. By His power though the works of Jesus we can become children of God. Then what we are and always will be in CHILDREN.. We could spend the rest of eternity with Him learning about Him being loved by Him and yet He will always be greater, more intelligent, greater in all ways than we can discover.. We are finite we had a beginning even after being His child living with Him in His house for 100 billion years we will have just been there for an eye blink compared to the timelessness that exists within Him. Yes we are Joint heir with Jesus of all God has. We will be kings and priests always in that Kingdom. There is nothing He has that will be kept from us except to share His essence. He alone is God. Never has and never will there be any other God formed. I can't become you, you can't become me, and no one can become God. He is God there is no other (Isaiah 45:5).. BTW we won't be with Him as His students will well be there as His Children. Subjects of His Love and grace. learn as we might knowing the unknowable will not be in our power.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by theway

Don't you find it contradictory that you are saying unleaven bread is to be used because leaven is a symbol of sin; and then in the same speach tell us that wine is to be used even though wine is made by adding leaven to it?

What bugs me is you lack of understanding.
Leaven is a symbol for the Kingdom of Heaven in the Bible.
And leaven bread was used for the eucharist for the first thousand years by Christians.
Given that where do you come up with these silly notions?

Here is the commandment concerning the feasts of unleaven bread.

Exodus 12:15
Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel..

Jesus warns us in Luke 12:1 about leaven: "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy." Throughout Matthew 23, Jesus lists a mul***ude of Pharisaical sins that could be grouped as their legalism. In Matthew 16:6, Jesus warns of the leaven of the Sadducees. The Sadducees' sins are not listed, but elsewhere we find they at least denied the supernatural and the resurrection of the dead (Acts 23:8). Jesus also warns of the leaven of Herod (Mark 8:15). Herod was involved in a great deal of lying in his political wheeling and dealing, abusing the power of his office, adultery, and general all-around worldliness.

The leaven that Jesus spoke of in Matthew 13:33 represents God’s work and the bread is the world. This means that the Church is the leaven working inside the world, as yeast spreads in bread leavening the whole lump of dough The leaven that is the Church spreads Her influence throughout the world. This picture repeats the lesson of the previous parable, the parable of the mustard seed (Matthew 13:31-32). There we saw that the influence of the church will be pervasive in the world. So it is the ability of leaven to spread that caused Jesus to use it as an example.

By using leaven bread the Eastern churches like the LDS were introducing sin as a symbol of the Perfect.. As for leaven being seen as a symbol for sin I have shown by the scripture where I get that idea. I don't believe this is the first, nor will it be the last, that you call the scripture silly.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

A good, informative post.

Informative, nonsense it throws out details that are unclear and clearly unstudied especially IN QUOTING THE SCRIPTURE.. . Remember God doesn't change (Mal 3:6) Calling leaven a symbol of sin once(1 Corinthians 5:8) means that it always will be.. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by James Banta

God's essence is DIVINE Creator, or is sinful creation.

Where did you get your definition? Do all Christians agree with you? What if most Christians believe that God is spirit, and therefore that's what His essence is?

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by James Banta

Informative, nonsense it throws out details that are unclear and clearly unstudied especially IN QUOTING THE SCRIPTURE.. . Remember God doesn't change (Mal 3:6) Calling leaven a symbol of sin once(1 Corinthians 5:8) means that it always will be.. IHS jim

If leaven always equals sin, then what do you say about Leviticus 23:17?

Ye shall bring out of your habitations two wave loaves of two tenth deals: they shall be of fine flour; they shall be baken with leaven; they are the firstfruits unto the Lord.

If God never changes anything He says, then why did God used to say "You shall execute any witches, gays, and disrespectful children you find among you" but He doesn't say that anymore?

[nrajeffreturns]

Matthew 13:33

Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

[MacG]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

So is that the only area where we can't be like God and Christ--in the area of essence? And by the way, isn't God, in His essence, spirit? And aren't we also essentially spirits?

What are the limits to our potential if we become, along with Christ, joint heirs of God's kingdom? What won't we be able to do or to know, given a billion years in God's presence as His students?

From the same block quote: "If we cannot be gods by nature or essence, in what way are we to be like God? ``We are as God by imitation, not by nature''

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Maybe, but St. Athanasius isn't an LDS source. He's the co-founder of Trinitarianism.

As I have shown the Bible DEMANDS that God is one Lord (Deut 6:4). The Bible teaches that the Father is God (John 20:17), that Jesus is God (John 1:1), and that the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4). These Persons are all called God in Scripture. Therefore these are One Lord.. These all are coeternal, co-creative.. They are one God.. That isn't an invention of any man it is the word given to us by God Himself. The founder of the Trinity of God is God though His word.. Anything beyond that is an invention of men, anything beyond Biblical truth are man's lies.. To deny that Jesus was with the Father in the beginning as He created the HEAVENS (All three of them) and the earth is to deny God in His word and therefore deny God Himself.. Isn't that what mormonism does? IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

No. That is not what Mormonism does, Jim. But I understand how you could believe that the Bible teaches Trinitarianism. After all, many Christians through the centuries believed it. But many other Christians believed that the Bible teaches Modalism, or Arianism, or Tritheism. How do you know they were wrong? They were Christians just like you.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

No. That is not what Mormonism does, Jim. But I understand how you could believe that the Bible teaches Trinitarianism. After all, many Christians through the centuries believed it. But many other Christians believed that the Bible teaches Modalism, or Arianism, or Tritheism. How do you know they were wrong? They were Christians just like you.

Mostly by the same p***ages you would use to try to prove your polytheism. I would show the Modalist the three separate manifestations of God at the baptism of Jesus. Jesus telling Mary that she wasn't to touch Him because He hadn't presented His resurrection body to the Father. I would show the Arianist that Jesus is called the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, I would show His that no God was formed before the Father and none would be formed after. To the Tritheist I would again show that the Lord our God is One Lord.. All they can tell me is what they FEEL is right.. They have no support in the Bible..

So Jeff remember the plan of salvation. Jesus is taught to be the first born spirit child of the Father, does it not? That would mean that before Jesus existed as a being capable to be called a god, the father was already a god. This would mean that the father the god of this world existed as god before Jesus was formed as a god for this world. That is a clear denial of Isaiah 43:10 no matter how you interpret it. Mormonism is not supported at all in the Bible but the doctrines of the Trinity is.. I am glade to know that you see the doctrine of the Trinity being supported there as I do.. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

Jim, according to your interpretation of the Bible in Matthew 13:33, the kingdom of heaven is like SIN.

So how can I trust your interpretation when it comes to your feelings about Trinitarianism?