LDS Mormonism is an enemy of the Cross and therefore not Christian

[BigDaddy4]

It doesn't matter if it is created or uncreated. God can move created to immortal, which = uncreated. It's no big deal for God to do that.

You are in a logical quandry. How does something that is created become "uncreated"? Imortal =/= uncreated. You just made that up to fit your point of view.

 

[dzheremi]

So we are going to say substance = substance, but we need to use this definition properly, so that we don't separate the Persons, and we don't deny them their own distinct personhood. This is the best definition of having your cake and eating it too.

"Substance = substance"? Er...okay.

And it's not 'having your cake and eating it too'. It's how the concept has been understood by Christians ever since we began using this terminology. Hence those who used the same terminology but with a different understanding were cast out because they were not adhering to the common faith as it had been received (e.g., Paul of Samosata, as mentioned earlier), but instead preaching their own definition, much like you seem to be trying to do.

If substance is like essence and essence is like divinity, I can understand. They are all divine. They all share the same divinity. The same divinity does not divide the persons and it does not deny each of them their own personhood. So we can almost come to agreement if divinity = substance = essence.

Well there has to be some reason I keep writing "substance/essence" and "they share one and the same divinity", and other things like that...if you'd rather use equal signs, that's fine with me.

OK that is that about their internal relation. What about their external relation?

What about it? 'Ousia' (and really any of its derivatives, either Orthodox or heterodox) is about their essence/substance, which necessarily deals with internal matters since one's essence is internal (you can't see it, touch it, etc.), so none of this says anything about their external anything. That's a different conversation, and not one that has any bearing on the conversation you and I have been trying to have in this thread.

 

[Peter1000]

You are in a logical quandry. How does something that is created become "uncreated"? Imortal =/= uncreated. You just made that up to fit your point of view.

The created doesn't really become uncreated. But the net result is exactly the same.

The only difference between uncreated and created is the immortal aspects of the uncreated. But if God can change the created into an immortal being anyway, in affect you are as immortal as the uncreated being.

It took you a liitle longer to enjoy the immortal aspects that the uncreated have enjoyed for longer, but you are now both immortal and at this point, whether you were uncreated or created it does not matter.

 

[Peter1000]

If it's in the Bible, then you would have scriptural support, but you do not.

How many times do I have to repeat this scripture that proves beyond any doubt that Jesus had a perfect, resurrected body of flesh and bone and spirit. (see Luke 24:36)

This is the only scripture that gives an account of what a resurrected body is made of, and what Jesus was made of. It is stunning, because most of Christendom would suppose that Jesus was pure spirit, because the body of flesh is evil.

It is not true, per Jesus, he made sure everyone learned that the body of flesh and bone was necessary and once changed into an immortal body was as immortal as an uncreated body.

There is no reason and no scripture that tells us he changed out this body for a spirit and went to heaven as a spirit. None. So the position that I take is that he ascended into heaven with a body of flesh and bone and spirit. There is no other scriptural position to take.

 

[Peter1000]

It is a huge deal to Christians, God is not created.

And there is no uncreated where God is concerned. That is the oddest thing I have ever heard, God becomes uncreated. Nice theology there.

I think you need to start providing some kind of scriptural support because this sounds made up.

I never said God was created.

I never said God becomes uncreated. So no oddest thing there. You must have read something wrong.

What I said was the only difference between uncreated and created is the length of time in existence.
Uncreated means immortal. I said, God could take created beings and makie them immortal. Can God do that?
Of course God can do that.

So the net affect of God taking a created being and making them immortal is that they are now as immortal as an uncreated being, except the uncreated being has been immortal longer. But at this point there is no difference between the uncreated and the created, because they are both immortal for ever.

 

[ToBeLoved]

The created doesn't really become uncreated. But the net result is exactly the same.

The only difference between uncreated and created is the immortal aspects of the uncreated. But if God can change the created into an immortal being anyway, in affect you are as immortal as the uncreated being.

It took you a liitle longer to enjoy the immortal aspects that the uncreated have enjoyed for longer, but you are now both immortal and at this point, whether you were uncreated or created it does not matter.

This is Mormon doctrine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Peter1000]

This is Mormon doctrine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is Mormon doctrine and it is also biblical doctrine.

But it is also God-can-do-anything doctrine. Can God take a created mortal being and through the resurrection process transform that creation into a immortal perfect being? Go ahead and answer me yes or no and then I will finish my thought. Thanks

 

[Peter1000]

"Substance = substance"? Er...okay.

And it's not 'having your cake and eating it too'. It's how the concept has been understood by Christians ever since we began using this terminology. Hence those who used the same terminology but with a different understanding were cast out because they were not adhering to the common faith as it had been received (e.g., Paul of Samosata, as mentioned earlier), but instead preaching their own definition, much like you seem to be trying to do.



Well there has to be some reason I keep writing "substance/essence" and "they share one and the same divinity", and other things like that...if you'd rather use equal signs, that's fine with me.



What about it? 'Ousia' (and really any of its derivatives, either Orthodox or heterodox) is about their essence/substance, which necessarily deals with internal matters since one's essence is internal (you can't see it, touch it, etc.), so none of this says anything about their external anything. That's a different conversation, and not one that has any bearing on the conversation you and I have been trying to have in this thread.

So their internal relation cannot be seen or touched etc. Their internal substance/essence cannot be seen or touched etc.
OK, none of this says anything about their external anything. That's a different conversation.

So let's have a discussion of their external relation. Can Their external relation be seen or touched?

 

[ToBeLoved]

It is Mormon doctrine and it is also biblical doctrine.

But it is also God-can-do-anything doctrine. Can God take a created mortal being and through the resurrection process transform that creation into a immortal perfect being? Go ahead and answer me yes or no and then I will finish my thought. Thanks

The Bible says that after this life on earth that our spirits and souls go on to eternal life. So I'm not into this uncreated or mortal as in we stop existing. God clearly made part of us immortal from the start. What returns to dust/earth is our bodies.

Whatever that means to you is what I believe.

 

[ToBeLoved]

So their internal relation cannot be seen or touched etc. Their internal substance/essence cannot be seen or touched etc.
OK, none of this says anything about their external anything. That's a different conversation.

So let's have a discussion of their external relation. Can Their external relation be seen or touched?

What the Bible says is that the Father is Spirit and must be worshipped in spirit and truth. Spirit being on a spiritual level through prayer, worship, ect and truth being the Word of God and what we are taught by the Holy Spirit and through the Bible.

Can our spirit be touched? Can the Holy Spirit indwelling us be touched? Can us having the mind of Christ be touched?

There ya go.

 

[ToBeLoved]

It is Mormon doctrine and it is also biblical doctrine.

But it is also God-can-do-anything doctrine. Can God take a created mortal being and through the resurrection process transform that creation into a immortal perfect being? Go ahead and answer me yes or no and then I will finish my thought. Thanks

I'm not sure that you can easily distinguish between what is Biblical doctrine and what is Mormon doctrine. It seems to me on some level the two begin to blend together. Which is why I think it is so hard for you to understand pure, Biblical concepts and truth.

That is just a reality to being Mormon though if you are going to mix Mormon books with God's Word. You will get confused. They are not alike.

 

[dzheremi]

So let's have a discussion of their external relation. Can Their external relation be seen or touched?

What? No, of course not. Do you know what the word 'relation' means?

This conversation is getting very strange. I normally wouldn't think that it would be necessary to spell something out to this degree, but apparently it is: you can only see or touch things that are physically present and perceptible in the world. Concepts such as relation, essence, etc. are not physical objects, so they cannot be seen or touched.

Again, what a weird question.

 

[Peter1000]

I'm not sure that you can easily distinguish between what is Biblical doctrine and what is Mormon doctrine. It seems to me on some level the two begin to blend together. Which is why I think it is so hard for you to understand pure, Biblical concepts and truth.

That is just a reality to being Mormon though if you are going to mix Mormon books with God's Word. You will get confused. They are not alike.

How would you know, you have never read the BOM, so you can't give an opinion.

 

[ToBeLoved]

How would you know, you have never read the BOM, so you can't give an opinion.

I gave my opinion about why it is so hard for Mormons to understand the Bible.

Where your putting the BOM in here I don't know


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[fatboys]

I gave my opinion about why it is so hard for Mormons to understand the Bible.

Where your putting the BOM in here I don't know


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you have never read the Book of Mormon you can't make an correct judgement on it.

 

[ToBeLoved]

How many times do I have to repeat this scripture that proves beyond any doubt that Jesus had a perfect, resurrected body of flesh and bone and spirit. (see Luke 24:36)

This is the only scripture that gives an account of what a resurrected body is made of, and what Jesus was made of. It is stunning, because most of Christendom would suppose that Jesus was pure spirit, because the body of flesh is evil.

It is not true, per Jesus, he made sure everyone learned that the body of flesh and bone was necessary and once changed into an immortal body was as immortal as an uncreated body.

There is no reason and no scripture that tells us he changed out this body for a spirit and went to heaven as a spirit. None. So the position that I take is that he ascended into heaven with a body of flesh and bone and spirit. There is no other scriptural position to take.

Just because Jesus had a ressurected body while He was still on earth (He had to otherwise they would not have recognized His form), that does not mean that He stayed in a body after He FULLY left earth.

Your scriptures even say that the Father is without a body.

 

[ToBeLoved]

If you have never read the Book of Mormon you can't make an correct judgement on it.

I think I understand mixing two contiridicting books and how that would skew one's doctrine on the other book. That is not a scholarly thought. 10 year old's know that.

My statement was that reading two contridicting books skews one's opinion and understanding.

Maybe you are not understanding the point. Read the above again.

 

[Peter1000]

I think I understand mixing two contiridicting books and how that would skew one's doctrine on the other book. That is not a scholarly thought. 10 year old's know that.

My statement was that reading two contridicting books skews one's opinion and understanding.

Maybe you are not understanding the point. Read the above again.

A 10 year old would tell you that you can not talk about 2 books contradicting each other if you have not read 1 of the books. Maybe a 5 year old would tell you that.

I know, your point is that you cannot read 2 contradicting books without skewing one's opinion and understanding. I am just telling you that they do not contradict each other. I have read both and are more fully aware of the majesty of Jesus Christ than you are. He has done more than you think he has for his people. You are totally unaware of things your Lord has done and that puts you behind the knowledge curve. So read it and get caught up in one of the best books written since the bible. Once you have read it then you can talk about anything you wish to, but only after you have experienced it. It is just wind until you have read it.

 

[mmksparbud]

I was looking at a Dog video and this came up in the side---this had been proved since 1966 but they still cling to these books????

 

[fatboys]

I was looking at a Dog video and this came up in the side---this had been proved since 1966 but they still cling to these books????

For crying out loud bums many times must this be gone through?