LDS Lucifer and Jesus are not brothers!

ToBeLoved said:

The other piece of information I have come across is that JS claims to have had a vision at age 14 yo where he says he saw God the Father as well as the Son.

No one in the Bible has ever said that they heard from the Father in a vision. Very very different from Chrisrianity.

Click to expand...

If you want to talk about a new topic, start a new thread. If you're unwilling to do that, stay on topic.

What it shows is how deep the rabbit hole goes.

ToBeLoved said:

What it shows is how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Click to expand...

What was that in response to?

Jane_Doe said:

But, do you see (from the Mormon perspective), that it is mainstream Christianity that warps the Bible and adds the sand of pagan philosophy? To me, it seems like when I'm chatting with a creedal Christian, that they're not really talking about the Bible at all, but trying to defend man-derived creeds and Greek philosophy? Do you see where these conversations can get frustrating on both ends?

Click to expand...

That's because you believe the bible is warped---remove that thought and take the bible for what it says and you can't come up with that. Every single new Christian, including the disciples, were turned to believing Jesus was the Messiah from reading of the OT. It is the only bible Jesus used. Believing in some man that says it's warped is the first step in rejecting the whole thing and coming up with no end of falsehoods. There was no NT yet. That OT has been proven to be accurate ever since the Dead Sea Scrolls. They were discovered in 1946 and more later. Entire passages, word for word, transcribed accurately and still reading the same today. I'm not much for creeds myself and only heard about them when I came on this site. From reading the NT, the word Christian was first used in Antioch long before any Nicene creed. It simply meant one who believed Jesus Christ was the Messiah. With so many people believing so many things, (and that started from the very start and the disciples warned about them) at some point I guess there had to be some more extensive definition of what that means. I never ask anyone what their creed is, don't care, I want to know what they believe about Jesus, God and the bible and what their view of salvation is. I choose to believe the bible, that God would not let us believe so many things contrary to His word for thousands of years requiring golden plates, a seer stone and a hat to decipher His truths. When God need to say something He says it. He speaks directly to His prophets, no seer stone in a hat required. Throughout the "Dark Ages" there were people who always had the word of God and God used them to bring His word back from being hidden. It was never removed from this world--God has always maintained a remnant. There is a way to destroy a believe, destroy what the believe is based on. Want to destroy America?---destroy the Constitution and put your own laws in. The NT is simply the fulfillment of the old, the new covenant that was spoken of in the old testament--not some new entirely different religion.
Jesus never said that angels were preexisting men, never even implied it, if there had been error, He would have pointed it out, as He did about there is no marriage after the resurrection--He had no trouble in letting anyone know they believed error. 2 creations??---Jesus would have mentioned it, He was there.

Look--the difference between us is you choose to believe a man that tells you the bible is corrupted and only he has the truth---I choose to believe the bible. There is enough arguing about what actually is written without having to argue over what isn't there. I prefer to do as Jesus did---a simple "It is written." Yes, there will be disputes about the interpretation of a word. But it's over a word that already is there not over a whole different story that isn't there. All everybody is trying to do is to get to what the author of the bible originally meant, but to bring in stuff that was never there in addition muddies the waters beyond recognition. We can argue about the state of the dead with what the bible says and get different interpretations because people want to believe one interpretation over another. But now, we have to argue over the state of the living also--now it's we existed before we were born, not, we are born and that begins our life, which is all the bible says. The bible says we should strive to become Christ like---now it's we will become a Christ. The bible says God alone is immortal and we will inherit eternal life, the earth will be made new and God will give us that world with everything He has made in it. Now that is not enough, now it's we always were eternal, we will create our own worlds and out what we want in them. We may get a whole lot more than what is written, because the bible says we can't imagine it--now we imagine it and give ourselves what isn't stated. I prefer to let God decide what will be given to me, it will be more than enough.

mmksparbud said:

Look--the difference between us is you choose to believe a man that tells you the bible is corrupted and only he has the truth---I choose to believe the bible. There is enough arguing about what actually is written without having to argue over what isn't there. I prefer to do as Jesus did---a simple "It is written." Yes, there will be disputes about the interpretation of a word. But it's over a word that already is there not over a whole different story that isn't there. All everybody is trying to do is to get to what the author of the bible originally meant, but to bring in stuff that was never there in addition muddies the waters beyond recognition. We can argue about the state of the dead with what the bible says and get different interpretations because people want to believe one interpretation over another. But now, we have to argue over the state of the living also--now it's we existed before we were born, not, we are born and that begins our life, which is all the bible says. The bible says we should strive to become Christ like---now it's we will become a Christ. The bible says God alone is immortal and we will inherit eternal life, the earth will be made new and God will give us that world with everything He has made in it. Now that is not enough, now it's we always were eternal, we will create our own worlds and out what we want in them. We may get a whole lot more than what is written, because the bible says we can't imagine it--now we imagine it and give ourselves what isn't stated. I prefer to let God decide what will be given to me, it will be more than enough.

Click to expand...

You are choosing to follow the words of a book that has been handled and translated by uninspired men. We have never said the bible is not the word of God. It is one witness that Jesus is the Christ. If you don't want to believe that Christ taught that in order to establish his word that there needs to be another witness that Jesus is the Christ that is okay with me. It is humorous to me that sincere thinking people feel they have more knowledge and foreknowledge to know what God can and cannot do. You think that we are so intent on worshipping Jospeh Smith that we are forgetting Christ. Joseph was just a man. He made mistakes as we all do. But he was called of God. Again if you believed it just because I said so I wouldn't believe you. There is a process that a person has to go through to gain the knowledge that what we are saying is true. That's it.

Peter1000 said:

So are you saying that God the Father was Jesus's God only after the incarnation?

Was God the Father not Jesus's God in heaven before the incarnation?

Click to expand...

I think that's a good question: did the pre-incarnate Word of God (and Wisdom of God, etc.) "have" a God? I'll look into that.

fatboys said:

You are choosing to follow the words of a book that has been handled and translated by uninspired men. We have never said the bible is not the word of God. It is one witness that Jesus is the Christ. If you don't want to believe that Christ taught that in order to establish his word that there needs to be another witness that Jesus is the Christ that is okay with me. It is humorous to me that sincere thinking people feel they have more knowledge and foreknowledge to know what God can and cannot do. You think that we are so intent on worshipping Jospeh Smith that we are forgetting Christ. Joseph was just a man. He made mistakes as we all do. But he was called of God. Again if you believed it just because I said so I wouldn't believe you. There is a process that a person has to go through to gain the knowledge that what we are saying is true. That's it.

Click to expand...

The truth is that there is 55 pages to this thread.

We have heard each of you out and read your posts. You do not want to believe that we have read and considered what you have said, but we have. And still there are more questions than answers because the things that are in the BOM are not Biblical. Not rational. Not feasible. Not plausible. Not accurate.

GIve us at least the credit that we deserve for having read through all of your posts and at least tried to understand your POV.

Peter1000 said:

ChetSinger says:
We have had the same Christology and the same scriptures for 2,000 years now.

You must have never read the history of Christianity.

The Christology of Jesus is all over the map. From about the time Jesus died till today, there are hundreds if not thousands of Christologies, all arguing with each other over which one is the truth.

You get 200 denominations together and then get into a serious talk about what is orthodox. I think before there was a consensus there would be bloodshed.

Click to expand...

Here at CF we all share the same basic Christology which is the Nicene Creed. I imagine we also all share the conclusions of the next four ecumenical councils, all of which dealt with Christological issues and are sometimes called the "Christological councils". The person of Jesus is the same, regardless of whether someone is Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or any of the major Protestant denominations.

fatboys said:

You are choosing to follow the words of a book that has been handled and translated by uninspired men.

Click to expand...

We have the Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic. The original language that the Bible was written in.

So your translation excuse is just that, an excuse.

You have a non-existant language with non-existant gold plates.

Surely you jest?

Peter1000 said:

ChetSinger says:
We have had the same Christology and the same scriptures for 2,000 years now.

You must have never read the history of Christianity.

The Christology of Jesus is all over the map. From about the time Jesus died till today, there are hundreds if not thousands of Christologies, all arguing with each other over which one is the truth.

You get 200 denominations together and then get into a serious talk about what is orthodox. I think before there was a consensus there would be bloodshed.

Click to expand...

And let's get all the Mirmons including Warren Jeff's group and you can talk orthodox.

We have the Nicene Creed which Mormonism does not believe in.

That is our solid ground.

ToBeLoved said:

And let's get all the Mirmons including Warren Jeff's group and you can talk orthodox.

We have the Nicene Creed which Mormonism does not believe in.

That is our solid ground.

Click to expand...

It was made up by a bunch of men. If he bible is inerrorant why do you need a creed to follow that is not at least included as part of the bible?

fatboys said:

It was made up by a bunch of men. If he bible is inerrorant why do you need a creed to follow that is not at least included as part of the bible?

Click to expand...

No. We do not have that.

Your mixing us up with your faith in JS and Moroni. What you have is a book made up by men. And beliefs that are against the Bible that you choose to believe. You have the truth just like everyone else in God's Word. You choose to not see or understand the truth. That is your own error.

Jesus told us that there would be false prophets and that people would not believe truth. Jesus foretold this.

mmksparbud said:

Look--the difference between us is you choose to believe a man that tells you the bible is corrupted and only he has the truth---I choose to believe the bible. There is enough arguing about what actually is written without having to argue over what isn't there. I prefer to do as Jesus did---a simple "It is written." Yes, there will be disputes about the interpretation of a word. But it's over a word that already is there not over a whole different story that isn't there. All everybody is trying to do is to get to what the author of the bible originally meant, but to bring in stuff that was never there in addition muddies the waters beyond recognition. We can argue about the state of the dead with what the bible says and get different interpretations because people want to believe one interpretation over another. But now, we have to argue over the state of the living also--now it's we existed before we were born, not, we are born and that begins our life, which is all the bible says. The bible says we should strive to become Christ like---now it's we will become a Christ. The bible says God alone is immortal and we will inherit eternal life, the earth will be made new and God will give us that world with everything He has made in it. Now that is not enough, now it's we always were eternal, we will create our own worlds and out what we want in them. We may get a whole lot more than what is written, because the bible says we can't imagine it--now we imagine it and give ourselves what isn't stated. I prefer to let God decide what will be given to me, it will be more than enough.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your thorough response Mmksparbud, but I'm not completely sure you answered my question. Mind trying again, maybe I'll catch it this time? My question was:

But, do you see (from the Mormon perspective), that it is mainstream Christianity that warps the Bible and adds the sand of pagan philosophy? To me, it seems like when I'm chatting with a creedal Christian, that they're not really talking about the Bible at all, but trying to defend man-derived creeds and Greek philosophy? Do you see where these conversations can get frustrating on both ends?

ToBeLoved said:

No. We do not have that.

Click to expand...

The Nicene creed was written by man, in no way God breathed. Instead, it's creation was ordered by a pagan emperor, heavily influenced by pagan philosophy, "truth" decided upon by popular vote of man (with only an incomplete attendance of theologians), and enforced by killing anyone whom disagreed with it (no matter how Bible-supported their view was).

The Nicene creed is completely man-made.

ToBeLoved said:

We have the Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic. The original language that the Bible was written in.

So your translation excuse is just that, an excuse.

You have a non-existant language with non-existant gold plates.

Surely you jest?

Click to expand...

YOU DONT HAVE ANY ORIGINAL WRITINGS. NONE. You keep coming on about original languages. So what. You have to have faith that what was written down and copied time and time and time again has remained pure. We have faith that the gold plates not only exist but that at a later date more will be translated from it. That what was translated from the gold plated is the word of God and that God continues to speak to man today through living breathing prophets of God. We have faith that God restored his church back to earth as Jesus himself had it organized when he organized it, when he was alive with prophets and apostles. That the priesthood authority that as lost was restored and is active today just as it was at the time of Christ.
You believe that every word that the bible has in it was perfectly given to man and that man perfectly relayed these words thousands of times to different people over decades and that these words remain as pure as when it came from the mouth of God before it finally as written down. Not only that you believe that even though at least two of the gospels were written by unknown writers and then handled countless times by men who had never heard of a creed and had different beliefs of the character of God long before the bible was brought together by a sun worshippers that it has remained as pure as when God spoke it to his apostles. And then you mock us as following a fairy tale.

fatboys said:

You are choosing to follow the words of a book that has been handled and translated by uninspired men. We have never said the bible is not the word of God. It is one witness that Jesus is the Christ. If you don't want to believe that Christ taught that in order to establish his word that there needs to be another witness that Jesus is the Christ that is okay with me. It is humorous to me that sincere thinking people feel they have more knowledge and foreknowledge to know what God can and cannot do. You think that we are so intent on worshipping Jospeh Smith that we are forgetting Christ. Joseph was just a man. He made mistakes as we all do. But he was called of God. Again if you believed it just because I said so I wouldn't believe you. There is a process that a person has to go through to gain the knowledge that what we are saying is true. That's it.

Click to expand...

Whatever you think the faults of the Bible are--it stands with far more accuracy of content , esp. since the dead sea scrolls, stands for far more inspirationally directed content, stands for far more historical accuracy and saved millions more people than the BOM will ever even come close to. The old testament was enough to save the disciples and the very first Christians and it still is! I put my faith in God to have saved enough of His Word from the attacks of Satan and have it be what directs us to Him. Satan has tried everything to destroy it---and His word still stands. The gates of hell have not prevailed against it, In spite of all attempts to degrade, destroy it, change it, have others take it and say it is wrong or not enough, deny it, kill it's believers, IT STILL STANDS---and will continue to. My God is able to keep His Word intact for His people. The OT has been intact for thousands of years and the New for over 2000.

Num_11:23 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Is the LORD'S hand waxed short? now shalt thou see whether My word shall come to pass unto thee or not.

Isa_55:11 So shall My word be that goeth forth out of My mouth: it shall not return unto Me void, except it accomplish that which I please, and make the thing whereto I sent it prosper.

Jer_1:12 Then said the LORD unto me: 'Thou hast well seen; for I watch over My word to perform it.

Jer_23:29 Is not My word like as fire? saith the LORD; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?

1Pe_1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

mmksparbud said:

Whatever you think the faults of the Bible are--it stands with far more accuracy of content , esp. since the dead sea scrolls, stands for far more inspirationally directed content, stands for far more historical accuracy and saved millions more people than the BOM will ever even come close to. The old testament was enough to save the disciples and the very first Christians and it still is! I put my faith in God to have saved enough of His Word from the attacks of Satan and have it be what directs us to Him. Satan has tried everything to destroy it---and His word still stands. The gates of hell have not prevailed against it, In spite of all attempts to degrade, destroy it, change it, have others take it and say it is wrong or not enough, deny it, kill it's believers, IT STILL STANDS---and will continue to. My God is able to keep His Word intact for His people. The OT has been intact for thousands of years and the New for over 2000.

Num_11:23 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Is the LORD'S hand waxed short? now shalt thou see whether My word shall come to pass unto thee or not.

Isa_55:11 So shall My word be that goeth forth out of My mouth: it shall not return unto Me void, except it accomplish that which I please, and make the thing whereto I sent it prosper.

Jer_1:12 Then said the LORD unto me: 'Thou hast well seen; for I watch over My word to perform it.

Jer_23:29 Is not My word like as fire? saith the LORD; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?

1Pe_1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

Click to expand...

Since when does people's ability to copy a document over and over again prove it's truthfulness? If that's your indicator of truth, then you really should look into Islam.

Jane_Doe said:

The Nicene creed was written by man, in no way God breathed. Instead, it's creation was ordered by a pagan emperor, heavily influenced by pagan philosophy, "truth" decided upon by popular vote of man (with only an incomplete attendance of theologians), and enforced by killing anyone whom disagreed with it (no matter how Bible-supported their view was).

The Nicene creed is completely man-made.

Click to expand...

Yes it was. It was written as a group of beliefs that each one of us after believing in Christ agree's that this is what our Lord says.

What it is is a creed of like beliefs that billions of Christians all believe the same.

The beliefs stem from our faith. The Nicene Creed is the tenants of our faith in writing.

No one has ever said that the Nicene Creed itself is the Bible. We do not hold it up as such. It is in plain language what our beliefs entail.

So, what is your point about it? That it is not the Bible? You would be right in that it is not the BIble, but no one says that it is.

ToBeLoved said:

Yes it was. It was written as a group of beliefs that each one of us after believing in Christ agree's that this is what our Lord says.

What it is is a creed of like beliefs that billions of Christians all believe the same.

The beliefs stem from our faith. The Nicene Creed is the tenants of our faith in writing.

No one has ever said that the Nicene Creed itself is the Bible. We do not hold it up as such. It is in plain language what our beliefs entail.

So, what is your point about it? That it is not the Bible? You would be right in that it is not the BIble, but no one says that it is.

Click to expand...

Then put it in the bible