Why I like this forum so much

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by jdjhere

Jesus was glorified BEFORE He became a man, Jeff.

I know.

Read John 17:5

I have read it many times in the past.

"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."

That's because He has ALWAYS been God.

Your proof text doesn't say that, but it does say that Jesus had glory before the world existed. And it implies that He was re-given that glory at some point after He made the request you quoted.

Jesus took on flesh... and was fully man the WHOLE time still being fully God.

The verse you quoted make it clear that there was a time when Jesus lacked glory. It spanned at least about 33 years. Otherwise, His request to be given the glory that He had before the world existed wouldn't make any sense.

There was never a time when Jesus was a "mere mortal."

There was a time when Jesus lacked glory. It spanned at least about 33 years.

Anyway, none of this refutes or invalidates my statement that

“Jesus was once mortal, but is now immortal, & glorified...”

My statement remains as true as ever.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

I know.


I have read it many times in the past.

"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."


Your proof text doesn't say that, but it does say that Jesus had glory before the world existed. And it implies that He was re-given that glory at some point after He made the request you quoted.


The verse you quoted make it clear that there was a time when Jesus lacked glory. It spanned at least about 33 years. Otherwise, His request to be given the glory that He had before the world existed wouldn't make any sense.


There was a time when Jesus lacked glory. It spanned at least about 33 years.

Anyway, none of this refutes or invalidates my statement that

“Jesus was once mortal, but is now immortal, & glorified...”

My statement remains as true as ever.

You are missing an important point here Jeff.. It doesn't matter if you believe that Isaiah 43:10 is only for this world or not.. The God that says that before Him no God was formed and none will be formed after Him is still a tripping point to you.. See if this is Jesus saying this then since the Father was a God before Him, Jesus can't be God.. If it is the Father saying this Then Jesus still can't be a God because He is taught within mormonism as becoming a God after the Father. No matter how mormonism teaches that Jesus became a God it is flat unbiblical UNLESS you will admit that the Father and Jesus are both eternally God, coequal in their Godhood.. That is the only way to have Both the Father and the Son be God without denying the scripture.. After all the Father and the Son are both the God of this world.. I happen to believe the scripture that says they are the God of all things visible and invisible but that doesn't matter as to whether they are the God of this world or not. Your LDS beliefs that Jesus became a God sometime after the Father was already a God forces you to hold a belief contrary to the Bible.. Jesus CAN NOT BE A GOD IF HE BECAME A GOD LATER THEN THE FATHER.. That is Biblical teaching.. If you deny that you deny the Bible as being the word of God.. That is what I expect you will do.. IHS jim

[MacG]

My statement remains as true as ever.

As I understand it, if the spirit babies of Elohim don't die if they don't take on human flesh. Therefore immortal. Is that true?

Rabbit trail: All of creation reproduces after its own kind, why doesn't Elohim? He has a Spiritual body as tangible as a man's while the children are spirit and do not.

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by MacG

As I understand it, if the spirit babies of Elohim don't die if they don't take on human flesh. Therefore immortal. Is that true?

Rabbit trail: All of creation reproduces after its own kind, why doesn't Elohim? He has a Spiritual body as tangible as a man's while the children are spirit and do not.

I think nrajeffnoretruns lives on a rabbit farm.

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by MacG

As I understand it, if the spirit babies of Elohim don't die if they don't take on human flesh.

You need to clarify what you mean because I am having trouble understanding it.

Therefore immortal. Is that true?

We can talk about spiritual death, if that's where you're trying to take your question, after you clarify your first statement, and after we define "immortal."

And your rabbit trail question can be answered fairly easily after we settle the trail outlined above.

[MacG]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

You need to clarify what you mean because I am having trouble understanding it.


We can talk about spiritual death, if that's where you're trying to take your question, after you clarify your first statement, and after we define "immortal."

And your rabbit trail question can be answered fairly easily after we settle the trail outlined above.

What is the chain of life for Elohim's spirit children?

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by MacG

What is the chain of life for Elohim's spirit children?

Spirits can't really be killed so they are not mortal.

"Mortal" means "able to die."

Right now you are considered mortal because your body can die. You are not immortal. Yet. (Your spirit is immortal, but you, as a flesh-and-blood being, are mortal.)

But once you're resurrected, you will be immortal because your body will never grow old, sick, or be able to be killed, and therefore will never be separated from your spirit again. Just like happened to Jesus about 1980 years ago.

[MacG]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Spirits can't really be killed so they are not mortal.

"Mortal" means "able to die."

Right now you are considered mortal because your body can die. You are not immortal. Yet. (Your spirit is immortal, but you, as a flesh-and-blood being, are mortal.)

But once you're resurrected, you will be immortal because your body will never grow old, sick, or be able to be killed, and therefore will never be separated from your spirit again. Just like happened to Jesus about 1980 years ago.

Should you previous statement (“Jesus was once mortal, but is now immortal, & glorified...”

My statement remains as true as ever.) then read: Jesus was immortal then mortal, but is now immortal, & glorified...”

[nrajeffreturns]

Your post was once again a bit incoherent. Jesus was once mortal. You can read, in the New Testament, about the period of His existence when He was a mortal being. The evidence that Jesus was mortal is the Bible's claim that He died.

But now, Jesus is immortal. All resurrected beings are immortal. The evidence that Jesus is now immortal is the Bible's claim that He was resurrected.

Is there anything that you need me to clear up about any of that?

[MacG]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Your post was once again a bit incoherent. Jesus was once mortal. You can read, in the New Testament, about the period of His existence when He was a mortal being. The evidence that Jesus was mortal is the Bible's claim that He died.

But now, Jesus is immortal. All resurrected beings are immortal. The evidence that Jesus is now immortal is the Bible's claim that He was resurrected.

Is there anything that you need me to clear up about any of that?

Sorry about being unclear. Upon further reflection I see what I was picking up on and whare I was going.

You comment to whomever it was, Jim I think, was that Jesus was immortal and now immortal having glory with God that he had before the world began. For us there is no preexistance as with the Spirit babies of Elohim. That's why it is a big deal for Jesus to have God's glory prior to birth and I see now for you it is no big deal except that prior to his birth Jesus was not exalted and therefore could not have equality with God.

I think I was seeing your statement as being incomplete. For the TCJCLDS idea is that Jesus was immortal (as a procreated spirit) prior to his mortality. So for you it is he was immortal then mortal then immortal.

That too is probably obtuse. Sorry. Probably best to drop this line as I cannot articulate what is in my grey matter any better.

[nrajeffreturns]

I think I understand you now. Thanks for clarifying.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by MacG

So you're saying that you don't know which apocryphal book because it was destroyed. Not a very good apologetic, below par for you Jim - you might as well claim it was written on gold plates too...

It can't be said that this quote was misattributed to Zechariah, since Zechariah, said no such thing. Yes his writtings had a few similar aspects, but that is as far as it should go. So, if Matthew, speaking with the Holy Spirit, quotes this and attributes it to Jeremiah, then it was indeed something Jeremiah said, and it was merely not recorded in his writings.

So, the answer could be as simple as this quote by Matthew is not by Zechariah but is merely an unrecorded quote by Jeremiah. Note also that Matthew does not say that the quotation was written by Jeremiah, but rather spoken (rheo) by Jeremiah. It is possible, therefore, that the Holy Spirit inspired Matthew to report a spoken prophecy of Jeremiah, just as Jude was inspired to include previously unwritten information about Michael in his book (Jude 9). After the spoken prophecy given to Jeremiah, the Holy Spirit could later have inspired a similar prophecy to Zechariah as part of his written account.

I take this as authoritative to all that trust God (Jesus), He promised to keep His word pure for us.. We can trust Him and look for truth in seeing His word as the truth or go along with the doubters of Jesus and see this as reason to attack the promises of God..

You can say that finding reason to believe the Bible as we now have it is below my standard but believing Jesus is the foundational point of my faith.. I give any theory that supports the text of the Bible more credence than a man coming along saying "See, See the Bible has error in it".. See answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/04/27/contradictions-mixed-prophets for the complete text I have used as a reference for my words..

Having reason for faith is important.. This gives me reasonable foundation for my faith.. This is not akin to Golden plates at all, the message from God the Holy Spirit tell us that this was said by the prophet Jeremiah. You can believe it was and trust God, or go along with the cultist that require that the Bible is corrupted and cling to such p***ages as this clinging to an idea that new revelation is needed to "correct" God message to us.. As for me I will cling to explanations that support God's word as the truth.. IHS jim

[MacG]

Originally Posted by James Banta

You can say that finding reason to believe the Bible as we now have it is below my standard

What I intended to convey was that positing a lost apocryphal book as an apologetic is below your standard. As Jeff knows I am not always clear...

As for me I will cling to explanations that support God's word as the truth.. IHS jim

So we agree that referring to an absent apocryphal book is now a weak apologetic. Your preference being that Jeremiah spoke it in the past and the Holy Spirit gave a word of knowledge to Matthew about it rather than Jeremiah wrote it down. Got it. It's a faith statement.

[nrajeffreturns]

So God can and does give people knowledge of sayings of ancient prophets--sayings that were never previously recorded.

It's good to see support for that idea.

You are now ready to start reading the Book of Mormon.

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

So God can and does give people knowledge of sayings of ancient prophets--sayings that were never previously recorded.

It's good to see support for that idea.

You are now ready to start reading the Book of Mormon.

How did I know that was coming? lol

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

How did I know that was coming? lol

Maybe you're a prophet!

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by MacG

What I intended to convey was that positing a lost apocryphal book as an apologetic is below your standard. As Jeff knows I am not always clear...



So we agree that referring to an absent apocryphal book is now a weak apologetic. Your preference being that Jeremiah spoke it in the past and the Holy Spirit gave a word of knowledge to Matthew about it rather than Jeremiah wrote it down. Got it. It's a faith statement.

The scripture is clear that these are the words of Isaiah. I believe what the Bible teaches.. Ok they are written down to match what Matthew quoted in Zechariah. But remember the p***age never said that written but Isaiah only spoken of by Him.. Such oral tradition is apocryphal. Seems I did misspeak is saying that it was ever written.. This is a confirmation of an this part of the oral tradition as truth.. What we as Christian must stand for is the truth of the scripture as we have it.. This confirms Jesus as God in holding that His promise that His words would never die is fulfilled..

If the Bible is corrupt then Jesus is powerless to protect His words. He would be no more powerful than the false gods of mormonism.. That is something I can not accept.. I don't believe you can either.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

So God can and does give people knowledge of sayings of ancient prophets--sayings that were never previously recorded.

It's good to see support for that idea.

You are now ready to start reading the Book of Mormon.

Tell me just where is there any recording of an oral tradition that was confirmed in the Bible as being a witness of the BofM? There is NONE! There is not one word of support for the BofM anywhere in the Bible.. All you can find in your interpretation of a p***age that prophecies that the Gospel will be taken to the gentiles.. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

Jim, if you want an LDS example of a reference like you believe Matthew is making referring to Isaiah's lost words, here is one:

In the BOM, writings of some prophets are referred to, but aren't currently known to exist.

"These writings are of Zenock, Zenos, and Neum (1 Ne. 19:10; Alma 33:3–17). An extensive prophecy by Joseph in Egypt (which is not in the Bible) is also apparent from 2 Ne. 3:4–22, and a prophecy of Jacob (not found in the Bible) is given in Alma 46:24–26. These writings were evidently contained on the plates of br*** spoken of in the Book of Mormon (1 Ne. 5:10–13)."

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/lost-books

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Jim, if you want an LDS example of a reference like you believe Matthew is making referring to Isaiah's lost words, here is one:

In the BOM, writings of some prophets are referred to, but aren't currently known to exist.

"These writings are of Zenock, Zenos, and Neum (1 Ne. 19:10; Alma 33:3–17). An extensive prophecy by Joseph in Egypt (which is not in the Bible) is also apparent from 2 Ne. 3:4–22, and a prophecy of Jacob (not found in the Bible) is given in Alma 46:24–26. These writings were evidently contained on the plates of br*** spoken of in the Book of Mormon (1 Ne. 5:10–13)."

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/lost-books

These are not the words of Isaiah these are the words of Joseph Smith.. No where, on any m****cript, are these words found. They were made up and added to the Bible in direct disobedience to God who commanded that nothing be taken from His word nor added to it (Proverbs 30:6).. You want to show the word of God as it was given though the prophet Isaiah, don't use Joseph Smith as the lens to view that word.. He has been shown as a liar as The Proverb says he would.. The BofM has been shown through anthropogenic study to be totally false.. Even the LDS church has wobbled in who the Americas were reserved for.. After all the Land was filled with a people that had no idea who YHWH is.. Instead of the demand of the BofM that the Americas were reserved for a righteous nation.. How is it that there were others in the Land that didn't know God before Lehi and His family arrive here? No, keep your false added doctrines of men and conform first to the that which is found in the Bible.. That is what they are just the words of a man..

There is a huge difference between what is quoted in the Bible and what is added as scripture outside it and not mentioned within it.. The Bible is the word of God, nothing else is.. IHS jim

[Pa Pa]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

When I compare this forum with the anti-LDS forum at C@$m, I see similarities and differences.

A Similarity: Both sites have pro-LDS and anti-LDS trying to shoot holes in the other side's claims.

One big difference I see is that here, both sides can make their case without getting handicapped by the double-standard-ridden Infraction Nazis, aka Carm's "Moderator 18" and "4Him."

Apparently at Carm, they are afraid of a fair fight between the pro- and anti- LDS.

Here, both sides can freely make their arguments, and may the best argument win, regardless which side made it. I like that a lot.

At Carm, one has to put up with being banned by the terrible moderating for doing nothing wrong, while seeing the other side get off with no such punishment, such as this: (Note that Martureo's asking me whether I sin isn't slammed for being off topic, and his insults are condoned)

When they (Matt Slick) who lost his daughter to such tactics, to allow his posters for foster 95%!of his lies! and then give his mods instructions on his bidding???what is to be expected?

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Pa Pa

When they (Matt Slick) who lost his daughter to such tactics, to allow his posters for foster 95%!of his lies! and then give his mods instructions on his bidding???what is to be expected?

Please if you insist on calling someone a liar please identify the lies.. All you have done here is name call.. When I call Smith a liar, I showed that he denied having more than one wife saying "What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one." (History of the Church Vol 6, boap.org/LDS/History/History_of_the_Church/Vol_VI) IHS jim

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by Sir

and the merry go round starts.

Are you again denying the Bible.. Sure seems like it to me.. In James 2 it does say that if our faith doesn't work it is a dead faith.. Mormons seem to like tht p***age they prop up their whole works salvation with it.. But James says more than Faith without works.. If you believe that part why is it you deny verse 10.

James 2:10
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Have you ever lied to anyone? That is bearing a false witness.. That is breaking the ninth commandment.. Telling a small white lie doesn't seem to serious but telling such a lie is prohibited in the Law just as not committing adultery. James tells us here that the lie you told is a serious before a Holy God as what you call a BIG sin.. Small sins like telling a ugly person how good they look is as serious before a Holy God as murder or adultery. It may be kind to lie to some ugly person but it is a false witness.. In breaking that command James tell you that you are guilty of all.. Why should you be forgiven of be guilty of the whole Law like adultery when I can't be forgiven? I trust my Lord who tells me that He took My sin and gave me His righteousness (2 Corinthians 5:21). That even though my sin is as scarlet He will make me white as wool (Isaiah 1:18). Again it seems that I uphold His word and you deny it..

My wife reminded me that this terrible sin I committed was 12 yeas 2 months ago. Isn't there a time period that even LDS can complete where repentance is fulfilled? You are acting like Satan in your accusations. I look to my Lord Jesus who says "Yes he is guilty, but those sin have been covered in my blood" (1 John 1:9).. In all this do you see that a confession was made? IHS jim

[Sir]

Originally Posted by James Banta

Are you again denying the Bible.. Sure seems like it to me.. In James 2 it does say that if our faith doesn't work it is a dead faith.. Mormons seem to like tht p***age they prop up their whole works salvation with it.. But James says more than Faith without works.. If you believe that part why is it you deny verse 10.

James 2:10
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Have you ever lied to anyone? That is bearing a false witness.. That is breaking the ninth commandment.. Telling a small white lie doesn't seem to serious but telling such a lie is prohibited in the Law just as not committing adultery. James tells us here that the lie you told is a serious before a Holy God as what you call a BIG sin.. Small sins like telling a ugly person how good they look is as serious before a Holy God as murder or adultery. It may be kind to lie to some ugly person but it is a false witness.. In breaking that command James tell you that you are guilty of all.. Why should you be forgiven of be guilty of the whole Law like adultery when I can't be forgiven? I trust my Lord who tells me that He took My sin and gave me His righteousness (2 Corinthians 5:21). That even though my sin is as scarlet He will make me white as wool (Isaiah 1:18). Again it seems that I uphold His word and you deny it..

My wife reminded me that this terrible sin I committed was 12 yeas 2 months ago. Isn't there a time period that even LDS can complete where repentance is fulfilled? You are acting like Satan in your accusations. I look to my Lord Jesus who says "Yes he is guilty, but those sin have been covered in my blood" (1 John 1:9).. In all this do you see that a confession was made? IHS jim

1) Why are you responding to me about a post I made a month ago to billyray?

2) It's funny that you start by saying your wife "reminded" you of your adultery and even gave the timeframe. Yet you then claim the LDS are the ones acting like Satan for, I guess, bringing it up, or something.

LOL

Must be bored tonight.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Sir

1) Why are you responding to me about a post I made a month ago to billyray?

Here was our exchange since you brought it up

Originally Posted by Sir

That's how I feel about you guys.

So I have fun with your posts and point out the problems with your logic.

People like billyray simply chant that they are truth-tellers and anyone who doesn't listen to them are Hell-bound.

Simply funny since everything that he says can be simply switched around and refer to himself.

It's a silly cycle so the fun comes in pointing out the [il]logical positions of the posters.

Originally Posted by Billyray

The only problem with your position is that you can't seem to back it up with the Bible.

Originally Posted by Sir

and the merry go round starts.

Perhaps you can expound on what you were really trying to say since from the Christian point of view our position makes perfect sense and is certain logical.