Why would anyone remain in the mormon church?

[Christian]

IF they ever read their Bibles? NONE of the mormon-specific junk exists in the Bible or any first century writing. . .joseph smith made it all up. Upon reading the Bible ANYONE seeking God would notice that.

[Erundur]

Originally Posted by Christian

IF they ever read their Bibles?

We remain in the Church of Jesus Christ because we read our Bibles.

NONE of the mormon-specific junk exists in the Bible or any first century writing. . .joseph smith made it all up.

False. Baptism for the dead is one.

[MickeyS]

Originally Posted by Christian

IF they ever read their Bibles? NONE of the mormon-specific junk exists in the Bible or any first century writing. . .joseph smith made it all up. Upon reading the Bible ANYONE seeking God would notice that.

Which Bible?
KJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NKJV, RSV, NASV, NEB, TEV, HCSB, NLT, TNIV, GNV, CET.....???

With confusion in doctrine between all these translations as well as the major doctrinal differences between all the Christian denominations...what Bible, and which "Christian" church??

It's so funny that you believe The Bible is that "last word" in authority, and then believe in the extra-biblical creeds that came later and added to the Bible. Oh, but that was different right?

And yes, I know, you will quote your single Isaiah verse that was dealing with the worship of false gods and idols. And your verse stating no other god "beside me" means no other God or being is equal to or more than Him. Which is true. He is and always will be our God, we will always worship Him, and no being, including His Son is equal to or greater than He. All are dependent upon Him.

So arm yourself with your one verse against the dozens of verses in the New Testament especially, that clearly and repeatedly teach the Father and The Son are separate (but one in purpose) Even as far as making SURE it's crystal clear during the baptism of Jesus (an account repeated in more than one Gospel) showing the Father, The Son & The Holy Ghost are separate individuals, and man still had to create their own definition that suited what THEY believe God should be.

[Saxon]

Which Bible?
KJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NKJV, RSV, NASV, NEB, TEV, HCSB, NLT, TNIV, GNV, CET.....???

With confusion in doctrine between all these translations as well as the major doctrinal differences between all the Christian denominations...what Bible, and which "Christian" church??

There is only one Bible. There are different versions of the one Bible. There are different in the language of the time that they were translated. There is no doctrinal change in any of them. Go to Bible Gateway and check the “differences". One could say, “Bob poked D i c k in the side for not cooking the bunny enough.” And another could say, “Robert rapped Rick in the ribs for roasting the rabbit so rare.” No Doctrinal change, only language.

Show me the confusion in doctrine between all these translations.

Christian denominations are man made but the Christian Church is God made. There are people from all Christian denominations in the Christian Church. Denominations are not the church. One church but many denominations.

It's so funny that you believe The Bible is that "last word" in authority, and then believe in the extra-biblical creeds that came later and added to the Bible. Oh, but that was different right?

Creeds are not authoritive, they supposedly reflect what is in the Bible. Not all do. Believe the Bible.

[MickeyS]

Originally Posted by Saxon

There is only one Bible. There are different versions of the one Bible. There are different in the language of the time that they were translated. There is no doctrinal change in any of them. Go to Bible Gateway and check the “differences". One could say, “Bob poked D i c k in the side for not cooking the bunny enough.” And another could say, “Robert rapped Rick in the ribs for roasting the rabbit so rare.” No Doctrinal change, only language.

Show me the confusion in doctrine between all these translations.

Christian denominations are man made but the Christian Church is God made. There are people from all Christian denominations in the Christian Church. Denominations are not the church. One church but many denominations.





Creeds are not authoritive, they supposedly reflect what is in the Bible. Not all do. Believe the Bible.

Again, which Bible?

The RSV of the Bible shows that God does not value an unborn life as equal to those already born.

In Exodus 21:22-23
the Revised Standard Version of the Bible reads like this

22 When men strive together and hurt a woman with child so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him, and he shall pay as the judges determine

23 If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life.

Now using the word "miscarriage" means the baby dies. So it's clearly stating that if the child dies only, then a punishment will be a fine, but if the mother died also, it shall be eye for an eye. So in this version of the Bible, God does not view an unborn life as important as that of the born.

In the King James Version is as follows

22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

In this p***age, "her fruit departs" meaning exactly that, the baby comes out. If no mischief follow (the baby and mother live) there will be a fine only

However if any mischief follow (the baby or mother, or both dies) then the punishment is life for life.

So depending on what version of the Bible you read, from that one word, it changes the entire mentality of God.

Which one is right??

To say the many translations don't change the message is incorrect. This is a pretty big message to be misinterpreting. So much so that depending on the Bible they use, the Pro-Life side uses it to prove God values all life the same, the Pro-Choice side uses it to prove God Himself doesn't consider the unborn as important as those who are already born.

And I do believe the Bible...the New Testament is quite clear that God and Jesus are separate individuals and that Christ is subordinate to
His Father. It was the creeds that decided differently.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Saxon

There is only one Bible. There are different versions of the one Bible. There are different in the language of the time that they were translated. There is no doctrinal change in any of them. Go to Bible Gateway and check the “differences". One could say, “Bob poked D i c k in the side for not cooking the bunny enough.” And another could say, “Robert rapped Rick in the ribs for roasting the rabbit so rare.” No Doctrinal change, only language.

Show me the confusion in doctrine between all these translations.

Christian denominations are man made but the Christian Church is God made. There are people from all Christian denominations in the Christian Church. Denominations are not the church. One church but many denominations.





Creeds are not authoritive, they supposedly reflect what is in the Bible. Not all do. Believe the Bible.

NIV Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

KJV: Romans 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:

My question --why do none of the new versions of the Bible have the word "Godhead"--and why was it placed their originally?

So, I went to Strongs Concordance and found this for Romans 1:20

The Greek word in this case is "Theiotes" which translates as (feminine noun) "divinity, divine nature"--seems like the NIV is more correct, right? But then, why not use divine nature in the first place? Where would the KJV get Godhead? So, I look up the root of the word "theios" and the definition is (adjective) "the general name of deities or divinities used by the Greeks" and "spoken of the only true and living God: The Father, of Christ, Holy Spirit."

The three usages in the Bible for "theios" is--

Act 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.

2Pe 1:3
According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

2Pe 1:4
Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.



When I look at all of these versus together--and the teachings in context, Godhead would be the best description. Because to understand the Godhead allows us to understand how we are the offspring of God, can receive his divine power, and receive the great and precious promises of being partakers of this divine nature. To remove the word "Godhead" removes the understanding of this divine nature.

[Saxon]

Again, which Bible?

Again, there is only one Bible. There are different versions of the one Bible.

The RSV of the Bible shows that God does not value an unborn life as equal to those already born.

That is unfounded conjecture. The Bible is clear that God IS love. Love does not fail. Love loves. Love is God’s at***ude toward mankind. The verse is is in the context of law and justice, with no mention that God loves. God’s love is not in question or part of the context. You have just thrown that in when it isn’t there.

In Exodus 21:22-23
the Revised Standard Version of the Bible reads like this

22 When men strive together and hurt a woman with child so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him, and he shall pay as the judges determine

23 If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life.

Now using the word "miscarriage" means the baby dies. So it's clearly stating that if the child dies only, then a punishment will be a fine, but if the mother died also, it shall be eye for an eye. So in this version of the Bible, God does not view an unborn life as important as that of the born.

In the King James Version is as follows

22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

In this p***age, "her fruit departs" meaning exactly that, the baby comes out. If no mischief follow (the baby and mother live) there will be a fine only

However if any mischief follow (the baby or mother, or both dies) then the punishment is life for life.

I am not a Hebrew reader I read English. What you are trying to push is not in agreement with what the Bible says about God and God’s love.

The translators were of different times and separated by centuries and our understanding of the English language has changed as time goes by and the English vocabulary also changes.

The following comment is more in line with what we know the love of God to be and is an explanation that is in line with what the Bible says of the love of God.

When men strive together and they hurt unintentionally a woman with child, and her children come forth but no mischief happens—that is, the woman and the children do not die—the one who hurts her shall surely be punished by a fine. But if any mischief happens, that is, if the woman dies or the children, then you shall give life for life. (Commentary on the Book of Exodus, Magnes Press, 1967)

If you want to believe your contradictory theory, you are certainly free to do so.

So depending on what version of the Bible you read, from that one word, it changes the entire mentality of God.

Which one is right??

To say the many translations don't change the message is incorrect. This is a pretty big message to be misinterpreting. So much so that depending on the Bible they use, the Pro-Life side uses it to prove God values all life the same, the Pro-Choice side uses it to prove God Himself doesn't consider the unborn as important as those who are already born.

And I do believe the Bible...the New Testament is quite clear that God and Jesus are separate individuals and that Christ is subordinate to
His Father. It was the creeds that decided differently.

If you always read the Bible as you have demonstrated, it is no wonder that you can’t understand what you are reading. They are all correct as to the message of the Bible. Your out of context grabbing of a few verses that don’t even speak about what you ar claiming is not going to lead you to anything but confusion. You seem to be well beyond circling the drain.

Your concept of the relationship that is between God and Jesus is a total bomb. Your Mormon concept has totally blinded you to the fact that there is only one God and that there is no other. The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are the one God. Jesus was God and became a Man. As a man he subjected himself to the Father. The Mormon concept has it backwards and contrary to the Bible that states that God became a man vice man becoming God.

[Saxon]

When I look at all of these versus together--and the teachings in context, Godhead would be the best description. Because to understand the Godhead allows us to understand how we are the offspring of God, can receive his divine power, and receive the great and precious promises of being partakers of this divine nature. To remove the word "Godhead" removes the understanding of this divine nature.

How did you come to that conclusion? How does “Godhead” allow us to understand how we are the offspring of God?

I see that you have a Strong’s Concordance. You should realize that the Greek has Godhead in the Authorized (King James) version and Divinity and also Divine Nature. These are all valid English terms that can be used to translate Greek to English. The trick is to know what term to use. Greek grammar, if you understand it, will be a major guide as to what is intended and what term is most suitable. If you don’t know the language you can’t just stick any term in there because you think it sounds better, it won’t work with any high degree of accuracy.



2305 yeiothv theiotes thi-ot’-ace

from 2304; TDNT-3:123,322; n f

AV-Godhead 1; 1

1) divinity, divine nature

For Synonyms see entry 5849

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Saxon

How did you come to that conclusion? How does “Godhead” allow us to understand how we are the offspring of God?

I see that you have a Strong’s Concordance. You should realize that the Greek has Godhead in the Authorized (King James) version and Divinity and also Divine Nature. These are all valid English terms that can be used to translate Greek to English. The trick is to know what term to use. Greek grammar, if you understand it, will be a major guide as to what is intended and what term is most suitable. If you don’t know the language you can’t just stick any term in there because you think it sounds better, it won’t work with any high degree of accuracy.



2305 yeiothv theiotes thi-ot’-ace

from 2304; TDNT-3:123,322; n f

AV-Godhead 1; 1

1) divinity, divine nature

For Synonyms see entry 5849

I looked at the root of the word and where it was used. To just say "divine nature" takes away from the greater understanding of the nature of God--the Godhead. Why lose the word "Godhead" from the newer additions? What is so threatening about this word now that was not threatening in earlier times?

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Saxon

The translators were of different times and separated by centuries and our understanding of the English language has changed as time goes by and the English vocabulary also changes.


Your concept of the relationship that is between God and Jesus is a total bomb. Your Mormon concept has totally blinded you to the fact that there is only one God and that there is no other. The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are the one God. Jesus was God and became a Man. As a man he subjected himself to the Father. The Mormon concept has it backwards and contrary to the Bible that states that God became a man vice man becoming God.

Interesting you understand that English changes over time, but do not also acknowledge its counterpart, meaning that as our language changes, so does our understanding of past language. Divine nature, for example, may be fully understood to mean "Godhead" during the KJV times, but now does not?

And your concept of the "nature of God" may have blinded you to the concept of the Godhead--written out by those who no longer understand it be changes in beliefs over the years and what the words actually mean.

[MickeyS]

Saxon....the word "miscarriage" is used...in English.

Miscarriage is when a baby is born prematurely and dies, it's not out of context...it's plain Englsh.

The two versions are saying completely different things. So now it's more like

"Bob poked Richard in the side for not cooking the rabbit enough" or

"Robert stabbed Rick to death for roasting the rabbit rare"

They're not saying the same thing. Period.

The baby in the ESV version of the scripture is in fact dead, and the only recourse is a fine. I know that God is love, and I know He values ALL human life the same, so I know the ESV is wrong. So that version of the Bible, in those verses, is wrong. God commanded life for life. All human life. Including the unborn. The ESV Bible does not say that. So in that version, the punishment for the death of the baby is not the same as it was. The message is different.

So how much more of that Bible could I trust? I know the Bible is the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly. So it seems your way to fix that would be to use a different book to help you understand it, at which time you would know the ESV Bible is INCORRECT. So to say all Bibles are saying the same thing, again, is inaccurate. And also brings up another issue...what Bible commentary should be used, because they all have differences in interpretation too, just saying.

I'm not misinterpreting anything, I'm reading the English text.

[Saxon]

Interesting you understand that English changes over time, but do not also acknowledge its counterpart, meaning that as our language changes, so does our understanding of past language. Divine nature, for example, may be fully understood to mean "Godhead" during the KJV times, but now does not?

2305 yeiothv theiotes thi-ot’-ace

from 2304; TDNT-3:123,322; n f

AV-Godhead 1; 1

1) divinity, divine nature

For Synonyms see entry 5849


godhead

noun
Divinity; godhood.
Godhead
a. The Christian God, especially the Trinity.
b. The essential and divine nature of God, regarded abstractly.

Origin of godhead
Middle English godhode, godhede, from Old English godh&amacron;d : god, god; see god + -h&amacron;d, -hood.

Read more at http://www.yourdictionary.com/godhea...QJLZMI2HfRG.99

It appears that the term “Godhead” is a late arrival. The Greek term used as godhead means divinity, divine nature. The English term, godhead is not derived from the Greek but is an English term used in the following three verses.

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.

Romans 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:

Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Divinity or divine nature will work as well. I think better as it gets to the point of Jesus being God without any foolishness of The Father, Son and Holy Ghost being three solitary beings.

And your concept of the "nature of God" may have blinded you to the concept of the Godhead--written out by those who no longer understand it be changes in beliefs over the years and what the words actually mean.

“My” concept of the nature of God is from the Greek term that Luke and Paul used before there was ever an English language, let alone the English term “Godhead”.

[Saxon]

Saxon....the word "miscarriage" is used...in English.

Miscarriage is when a baby is born prematurely and dies, it's not out of context...it's plain Englsh.

What is out of context is your use of the verse you quoted to jump to the conclusion that God loves an unborn human less than a born human. The “out of context” is that the verse is not speaking or referring ti the love of God toward man, still in the womb or not.

The two versions are saying completely different things. So now it's more like

"Bob poked Richard in the side for not cooking the rabbit enough" or

"Robert stabbed Rick to death for roasting the rabbit rare"

They're not saying the same thing. Period.

What you wrote is not saying the same thing because you are not saying what I said. Your version of what I said is totally corrupt.

I said:

“Bob poked D i c k in the side for not cooking the bunny enough”, and “Robert rapped Rick in the ribs for roasting the rabbit so rare.”

The baby in the ESV version of the scripture is in fact dead, and the only recourse is a fine. I know that God is love, and I know He values ALL human life the same, so I know the ESV is wrong. So that version of the Bible, in those verses, is wrong. God commanded life for life. All human life. Including the unborn. The ESV Bible does not say that. So in that version, the punishment for the death of the baby is not the same as it was. The message is different.

So how much more of that Bible could I trust? I know the Bible is the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly. So it seems your way to fix that would be to use a different book to help you understand it, at which time you would know the ESV Bible is INCORRECT. So to say all Bibles are saying the same thing, again, is inaccurate. And also brings up another issue...what Bible commentary should be used, because they all have differences in interpretation too, just saying.

I'm not misinterpreting anything, I'm reading the English text.

How do you know if it is translated correctly?? You obviously don’t know. If you took the time to have an honest look for yourself you would see that it is correctly translated because all the versions say the same thing. The operative word is “honest”

Look at the verse you quoted from Exodus and compare the statement below.

When men strive together and they hurt unintentionally a woman with child, and her children come forth but no mischief happens—that is, the woman and the children do not die—the one who hurts her shall surely be punished by a fine. But if any mischief happens, that is, if the woman dies or the children, then you shall give life for life. (Commentary on the Book of Exodus, Magnes Press, 1967)

And Mormons don’t have different books to help you understand Mormon theology??

I am not saying that you are misinterpreting anything because you are not interpreting, but as you said, reading the English text. What you are doing is miss-reading the English text. You failed to see what the rest of the book says about the love of God before you make declarations of God’s love based on a verse that is not even referring to God’s love.

The Bible needs to be studied and cross-refer within the Bible, not simply read like a novel. If you want to claim to know what the Bible says, you need to do some work and dig out the whole idea from the Bible.

[MickeyS]

Originally Posted by Saxon

What is out of context is your use of the verse you quoted to jump to the conclusion that God loves an unborn human less than a born human. The “out of context” is that the verse is not speaking or referring ti the love of God toward man, still in the womb or not.




What you wrote is not saying the same thing because you are not saying what I said. Your version of what I said is totally corrupt.

I said:

“Bob poked D i c k in the side for not cooking the bunny enough”, and “Robert rapped Rick in the ribs for roasting the rabbit so rare.”





How do you know if it is translated correctly?? You obviously don’t know. If you took the time to have an honest look for yourself you would see that it is correctly translated because all the versions say the same thing. The operative word is “honest”

Look at the verse you quoted from Exodus and compare the statement below.

When men strive together and they hurt unintentionally a woman with child, and her children come forth but no mischief happens—that is, the woman and the children do not die—the one who hurts her shall surely be punished by a fine. But if any mischief happens, that is, if the woman dies or the children, then you shall give life for life. (Commentary on the Book of Exodus, Magnes Press, 1967)

And Mormons don’t have different books to help you understand Mormon theology??

I am not saying that you are misinterpreting anything because you are not interpreting, but as you said, reading the English text. What you are doing is miss-reading the English text. You failed to see what the rest of the book says about the love of God before you make declarations of God’s love based on a verse that is not even referring to God’s love.

The Bible needs to be studied and cross-refer within the Bible, not simply read like a novel. If you want to claim to know what the Bible says, you need to do some work and dig out the whole idea from the Bible.

You are simultaneously misunderstanding what I am saying and proving my point.

No I did not say the same thing you did, because the two versions of the same verses did not say the same thing, I was giving a more appropriate version of your quote, because they each say something different.

But now you are saying it's ok if the Bibles are all different as long as the one message "God is love" is conveyed. However if a person seeking God only read the ESV and came across these verses, it would seem incompatible with who God really is. What conclusion is one to come to after reading that the death of an unborn child is not punishable the same as that of the mother? What message DOES that convey?

You are no longer addressing my original point and that is "THESE TWO VERSIONS SAY DIFFERENT THINGS"

Your example of Rick and Bob was saying the Bibles say the same EXACT thing through their translations, I showed you verse that shows that is incorrect.

One version shows the baby is either alive (no mischief follows) or not (mischief follows)
The other version the baby died in both situations.

They are different....do you not see that the two versions are saying completely different things? Did you look at the ESV verses and compare it to your study guide? They say different things.

You have to see that. I'm not saying I don't study the Bible. I'm not saying I don't use study guides. I do. I study the Bible, I study the Book of Mormon - Another Testament of Jesus Christ, and I rely upon modern day revelation that comes directly from God and clears of any confusions in doctrine. I don't have a perfect knowledge of everything, of course not, I learn more everyday. But no, I don't read the Bible "like a novel" lol

That does not change the facts that the various translations of the Bible do not agree in places, leave verses or words completely out (if those verses were unimportant then why were they there in the first place?) those are the facts. I was merely pointing that out.

But it's ok, you'll continue on with what you're saying, and you'll continue to show disdain for my faith, that's fine. I've seen your comments in the past, you'll continue to dance around this. So, carry on. But I'm not going to keep saying this over and over. I've shown the direct differences, you'll just keep choosing to ignore them, so, I will ignore as well

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by Saxon

2305 yeiothv theiotes thi-ot’-ace

from 2304; TDNT-3:123,322; n f

AV-Godhead 1; 1

1) divinity, divine nature

For Synonyms see entry 5849


godhead

noun
Divinity; godhood.
Godhead
a. The Christian God, especially the Trinity.
b. The essential and divine nature of God, regarded abstractly.

Origin of godhead
Middle English godhode, godhede, from Old English godh&amacron;d : god, god; see god + -h&amacron;d, -hood.

Read more at http://www.yourdictionary.com/godhea...QJLZMI2HfRG.99

It appears that the term “Godhead” is a late arrival. The Greek term used as godhead means divinity, divine nature. The English term, godhead is not derived from the Greek but is an English term used in the following three verses.

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.

Romans 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:

Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Divinity or divine nature will work as well. I think better as it gets to the point of Jesus being God without any foolishness of The Father, Son and Holy Ghost being three solitary beings.





“My” concept of the nature of God is from the Greek term that Luke and Paul used before there was ever an English language, let alone the English term “Godhead”.

Without any foolishness of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost? That is foolishness? I thought that is the description of your God?

And how do you see being the offspring of God and partakers of this divine nature?

[Saxon]

The foolishness thinking that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three I dividual gods. Do you misrepresent my post on purpose?

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by Saxon

The foolishness thinking that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three I dividual gods. Do you misrepresent my post on purpose?

lets be very clear then..

the father is God almighty
The Son is God almighty
The Spirit is God almighty.

Yet there are not 3 gods, but only One.>

The father is not more god than the Son is.

The Spirit is not less God almighty than the Father is.

Each person is the one true God...
But the father is not the Son
The Spirit is not the Son too.

So what we say is that "Within the nature of the one true God there are 3 persons"

[MickeyS]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

lets be very clear then..

the father is God almighty
The Son is God almighty
The Spirit is God almighty.

Yet there are not 3 gods, but only One.>

The father is not more god than the Son is.

The Spirit is not less God almighty than the Father is.

Each person is the one true God...
But the father is not the Son
The Spirit is not the Son too.

So what we say is that "Within the nature of the one true God there are 3 persons"

But if you read the Bible, it is abundantly clear that The Son is subordinate to The Father. I don't know how many times He had to say it, but He made sure He constantly spoke of The Father being greater than Him. So how can He be less than and the same as His Father?? Because He is a separate individual who is less than The Father, but is equal to and United in terms of purpose as a member of the Godhead. But the "chain of command" as it were, is that God's Will is carried out by The Son. GOD's will, GOD's plan...which is in turn carried out by The Son and The Holy Ghost.

To me it's a perfect chain of command. All things are by GOD's Hand...He directs the earth and mankind through His servants. The physical (Jesus Christ as the Jehovah of the OT acting directly on behalf of His Father, The Atonement and Resurrection) and the spiritual (The Holy Ghost dwelling within us to confirm, protect and guide us on behalf of The Father) each of these Beings serve their purpose, but it's still The Father's purpose. It's like a corporation, or army or church...anything...that has a head (God) and then those who work for and in behalf of the head.

I still don't see how trinitarians reconcile the fact they believe The Father and Son are the same Being, then believe that God has no physical body, but Christ has a body....if they were the same being, wouldn't that mean God has a body too?? Also, if you believe God is unchanging from beginning to end....how do you explain Him gaining a physical body along the way? The second that happened, it changed the entire dynamic of the trinity, and how do you do believe that and believe it's unchanging?? It literally changed. It's fraught with complete contradiction.

Understanding Gods Nature explains our purpose, divine nature and eternal destiny, through the importance of family, the importance of a physical body....I try to look at it from the other side and there are so many things that just don't...make...sense.

These are the irreconcilable discrepancies I find when attempting to believe God never has had a body, or been part of a family (although we call Him Father)

How do you explain the importance of marriage and family from the beginning of time? If God holds no importance of the concept of family, since He never had one and we won't have one after this life....WHY is it so important IN this life? So important that His Son had to enter this life within a family of a lawfully wed husband and wife. Where did this concept of husband and wife even come from, and why is it one of the most sacred things on this earth? Further, why would God give us the concept and COMMANDMENT of family, teach us the importance and joys of living within the parameters of HOLY matrimony, only for us to never have the opportunity to experience the fullness of what that means ever again?

How do you explain the obvious importance of the physical body....SO important, that Jesus Christ had to gain one, suffer and die with one, only to be reunited with it. If a physical body holds no personal meaning or importance to God, since He's never had one, then WHY is it so important that we be reunited with ours? And if you believe we're "made in His image" even if that means our spirits and not our bodies....again, WHY is the body SO important?? If we were made in His image as spirit, why then do we not just go back and dwell solely in spirit like He does? To strap us with our physical bodies again, if you believe the spirit alone is the greatest level one could reach (as you would believe he is) wouldn't be seen as a great reward, would it?

Yeah, I know ive rambled here, I just am trying to see how you view the importance of family and our bodies in an eternal perspective and how that relates at all to God and our divine nature (that come from Him)

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by MickeyS

But if you read the Bible, it is abundantly clear that The Son is subordinate to The Father. I don't know how many times He had to say it, but He made sure He constantly spoke of The Father being greater than Him. So how can He be less than and the same as His Father??

Because....Of this-

Jesus is fully what?...a dog?....no

fully a worm?.......no

Fully a chair?...........no


The answer is that Jesus is fully "human"
Jesus is just as human as I am.
And being fully human as I am he worships the father just as I and the rest of the Church do.
And being fully human, the Father is greater than he is, just as the father is greeter that I am too.

So when Jesus says that the father is "greater" than he is, he speaks the truth for I can say the same thing!
Both Jesus and I are fully human, and so the father is naturally greater than we are....


But the Bible also says that Jesus is equal to the father....for both are God.



So how does this wrap it all up again?
The answer is that within the nature of God there are 3 persons...(as I said already)

[MickeyS]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Because....Of this-

Jesus is fully what?...a dog?....no

fully a worm?.......no

Fully a chair?...........no


The answer is that Jesus is fully "human"
Jesus is just as human as I am.
And being fully human as I am he worships the father just as I and the rest of the Church do.
And being fully human, the Father is greater than he is, just as the father is greeter that I am too.

So when Jesus says that the father is "greater" than he is, he speaks the truth for I can say the same thing!
Both Jesus and I are fully human, and so the father is naturally greater than we are....


But the Bible also says that Jesus is equal to the father....for both are God.



So how does this wrap it all up again?
The answer is that within the nature of God there are 3 persons...(as I said already)

I know the Bible says Jesus is equal to God in purpose, especially when he acts completely on His behalf (as Jehovah of the OT) which He does completely as God's representative on this earth. Just as the Holy Ghost acts as His spiritual representative. But God The Father is greater, as no one is equal to or greater than He.

So how can one be "less than" and "equal to"? Because Jesus Christ (who you agree is subordinate to His Father) is a separate individual than His Father, but equal in purpose , THE FATHER's purpose, as part of the Godhead, which is led by, who? God. The Father. Like Tolkien would say, One God to rule them all. There is no other God BESIDE HIM. No one is or ever will be equal to or greater than He.

How does an unchanging God change from God to human to spirit to human again and not change?

Like I said....the whole concept is contradictory.

Do you have any thoughts on what else I said? I haven't been able to get a trinitarian to explain the importance of a physical body and the family unit as it relates to God and our divine nature and eternal destiny. I wouldn't be able to understand what they believe with so many discrepancies of such important aspects of who we are.


Actually....re reading what you said, it seems you actually confirmed what I said. So wow, you actually did wrap it up almost. You almost have it Alan....SO close. Sincerely

[alanmolstad]

is there a question you want me to answer?

I ask cuz you can write a post with a ton of deep questions and if I just take the first one and try to answer it as best I can ....only to have you suggest I ducked all the others is....
Well its just showing this is not going to work..




I mostly can address one question in one oof posts and even then risk posting too long of a comment to get anything out of.

[MickeyS]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

is there a question you want me to answer?

I ask cuz you can write a post with a ton of deep questions and if I just take the first one and try to answer it as best I can ....only to have you suggest I ducked all the others is....
Well its just showing this is not going to work..




I mostly can address one question in one oof posts and even then risk posting too long of a comment to get anything out of.

Are you only afraid of long comments if they don't entail ridicule mocking and copy/paste from other sources? Suddenly you're concerned about the length and frequency of your posts? Your posts can get extremely long winded (as do mine, I'm well aware) so I really didn't think that would be a great hardship. I really didn't, why would I think that would be a problem for you? But suddenly it appears it is and I see you only focus your long posts (as in LONG and many many many) on certain topics. I am trying, again, to address actual things of importance that doesn't include repeated gossip, and of which I never receive answers. Again, really negates the whole idea of a "ministry" here.

And it's funny....I'm not afraid to address your posts...

I also didn't realize you suddenly cared what I thought....interesting.

In the end, the fact that there ARE so many questions....well...that's says a lot in itself I believe. I didn't create the discrepancies, they're already there. But there were two basic topics

Why is our physical body so important?
Why is the family unit so important?

Since in the trinitarian beliefs, God has neither, and never did. Why does He hold them as important?

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by MickeyS

Your posts can get extremely long winded

Im saying that its a lot more easy if I have to answer one question, than if a person asks a bunch of deep questions, and then when I pick one that is the most interesting and wrote an answer for it, the guy (or gal)suggests that I ducked all the others...

So to make things easy, I try to stick to one question/one answer in each ofmy posts,and even then I might tend to drag it out.

[alanmolstad]

so again, is there a question you want me to answer?

[MickeyS]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Im saying that its a lot more easy if I have to answer one question, than if a person asks a bunch of deep questions, and then when I pick one that is the most interesting and wrote an answer for it, the guy (or gal)suggests that I ducked all the others...

So to make things easy, I try to stick to one question/one answer in each ofmy posts,and even then I might tend to drag it out.

I asked two, is that too much??