LDS The 'beginning' of God in Mormonism

[miknik5]

You claim we are being rude by laughing at an appearance by God the Father and his son Jesus Christ to a fourteen year old boy? If what we are saying is true you would be in judgement of God.

I am laughing because there was no need for anyone to add to GOD's WORD -and TRUTH

HE gave us everything we need to know HIM by and did not overlook anything that HE needed the "help" of a man to do what HE can do by HIS SPIRIT

That is to lead us to both THE TRUTH (or the lack of truth) in all things

Nothing was left out
These disguised angels went above THE LORD and are therefore disobedient....."angels"

 

[fatboys]

I am laughing because there was no need for anyone to add to GOD's WORD -and TRUTH

HE gave us everything we need to know HIM by and did not overlook anything that HE needed the "help" of a man to do what HE can do by HIS SPIRIT

That is to lead us to both THE TRUTH (or the lack of truth) in all things

Nothing was left out
These disguised angels went above THE LORD and are therefore disobedient....."angels"

And who said we do not need more of Gods word? If God called living prophets just as he has always done before during and after the life of Christ wouldn't that be important?

 

[Peter1000]

It's probably not a great idea to argue from the secular understanding of what words mean in English, when discussions about procession as it relates to Christianity were historically conducted and decided in Greek, in Christian councils rather than secular dictionaries. No church father ever spoke or wrote in English, let alone modern English of the type that we are using right now.

Normally I wouldn't make this kind of argument, as of course our faith is translatable by virtue of the fact that you don't have to be Greek to understand it even though the NT was written in Greek, but as this concerns the particulars of what it means to 'proceed' from the Father, it should be pointed out that this particular verb has been the subject of extensive and ongoing conflict between the Greek-speaking/writing East, which has one understanding of it, and the Latin-speaking West, which has another. So there's actually tons and tons of material out there on this very question, dating back to at least the 6th century Council of Toledo (which codified the Latin understanding in the Western Church) up to today. I have not read it myself, but I have heard good things about A. Edward Siecienski's book The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy, which was published some years ago by Oxford as a part of their Studies in Historical Theology series.

You bring up the Doctrinal Controversy of the Filioque. That is an interesting controversy. As I understand it, the Eastern church declares that the HS proceeds from the Father only. The Western church declares that the HS proceeds from the Father and the Son. It has been a rather silly controversy for millenia.

This is why I say 'silly'. If the Father and the Son and the HS are 1 God, and that is understood in the Trinitarian way, then there should be no conflict no matter how you view the proceeding.

It just proves that all churches East and West do not view the relationship between the Father and the Son and the HS, in fact the Holy Trinity in the same way. (ya think)

In a Trinitarian look at the HS proceeding, it has to be proceeding from the 1 God, the end. Since this 1 God includes both the Father and the Son, then the HS must, by Trinitarian definition, be proceeding from the Father and the Son or the 1 God.

If the HS was just proceeding from the Father only, then the Father and the Son are not part of the same Holy Trinity.

Does that make sense?

So if you believe in the Holy Trinity, that says the Father and the Son and the HS are 1 God, then the HS can only be proceeding from that 1 God, which includes the Father and the Son, therefore the Western church, IMHO is right.

 

[miknik5]

And who said we do not need more of Gods word? If God called living prophets just as he has always done before during and after the life of Christ wouldn't that be important?

if you have JESUS you have LIFE

What more do you need?

 

[fatboys]

What you are saying isnt true

There is only ONE BODY and

if you have JESUS you have LIFE

What more do you need?

From my view you have less understanding of who the Christ was. You say all you need is Christ. Essentially that is true. There is only one way back to heaven. That is through the son. You believe as others do that once you believe then you have arrived. This is why I asked who gave you the authority to interpret the scriptures correctly? They are not open to private interpretation. Now you may have interpreted correctly but how do you know for sure? There are thousands of different Christian denominations who use th same bible and the same scriptures you do but interpret it differently. How do you know hey are not more correct and your wrong?

 

[miknik5]

You have all of GOD's WORD

There is nothing GOD has not given us in HIS SON

 

[fatboys]

You have all of GOD's WORD

There is nothing GOD has not given us in HIS SON

What does that mean?

 

[miknik5]

From my view you have less understanding of who the Christ was. You say all you need is Christ. Essentially that is true. There is only one way back to heaven. That is through the son. You believe as others do that once you believe then you have arrived. This is why I asked who gave you the authority to interpret the scriptures correctly? They are not open to private interpretation. Now you may have interpreted correctly but how do you know for sure? There are thousands of different Christian denominations who use th same bible and the same scriptures you do but interpret it differently. How do you know hey are not more correct and your wrong?

Because 1 John 2:27 is TRUTH sir

 

[miknik5]

What does that mean?

It means that all GOD's PROMISES are steadfast and true to all those who are in CHRIST JESUS

 

[fatboys]

It means that all GOD's PROMISES are steadfast and true to all those who are in CHRIST JESUS

What does in Christ mean?

 

[Jane_Doe]

Because 1 John 27 is TRUTH sir

That doesn't address the question.

There are 30,000+ Christian denomination who vary on major issues like what is required for salvation, what books are in the Bible, does Christ has a personal representative on Earth, etc. They have every access to scripture and the Spirit as the other, but arrive at very different conclusions.

It is simple logic that only 1 can be Truth. How do you know that what you interpret out of the Bible is Truth and that the different Christian next door if False? Logic dictates that you could just as well be False. You cannot both be True.

 

[Ironhold]

[

LOL

You accuse us of rudeness...

...then literally laugh at us.

Stop and think about how that comes across.

 

[Peter1000]

It had to be that way in order for the WORD to fulfill all the requirements of the law

The testimony of two or three were needed to affirm a TRUTH

Though THE SON of GOD who came forth from
GOD and into the world who declared HIMSELF the BREAD which came down from Heaven could testify of HIMSELF HE understood according to the law two st least weee needed which is why HE pointed to John as a human witness that a man might believe

But THE SON pointed to HIS FATHER and those who had the WORD and law were confused and offended and asked again and again "who is your FATHER?" (John 8)

Showing that they did not believe HIS TESTIMONY


And in fact John's TESTIMONY was weightier than what you have mentioned

John knew this was the ONE who is from above who speaks of what HE has seen though no man believes HIS TESTIMONY (John 3:30 and John 3:31)

You are right, it had to be that way in order for the Word to fulfill all the requirements of the law.

The testimony of 2 or 3 were needed to confirm a truth.

So if you read John 8:16 you will find out who the 2 men were who testified of the truthfulness that Jesus was the Son of God.
John 8:16-18King James Version (KJV)
16 And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.
17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.
18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.

So Jesus says you need 2 men to establish the truth. Jesus goes on to say that he is 1 man and he bears witness of himself, and the Father is the second man that sent me and bearth witness of me.

Notice that Jesus uses the term 'men', there is a need of '2 men' to establish truth.

Jesus is referring to himself as a man, and he also refers to his Father as a man. Interesting don't you think.

Now it makes sense. Jesus, 1 God/Man, was sent to earth by a second, separate and distinct God/Man. It only makes sense now, God truely did send His Son. Jesus left his Father in heaven and came to earth, but the 2 of them testify that Jesus is the Christ and it establishes the truth of it. Perfect.

 

[miknik5]

What does in Christ mean?

It means we have been baptized into CHRIST and raised up (born again) a new creation IN HIM by HIS LIFE-GIVING SPIRIT

It is because we are gathered up into CHRIST that we are reconciled to GOD in HIS SON, by HIS SON and through HIS SON

 

[miknik5]

That doesn't address the question.

There are 30,000+ Christian denomination who vary on major issues like what is required for salvation, what books are in the Bible, does Christ has a personal representative on Earth, etc. They have every access to scripture and the Spirit as the other, but arrive at very different conclusions.

It is simple logic that only 1 can be Truth. How do you know that what you interpret out of the Bible is Truth and that the different Christian next door if False? Logic dictates that you could just as well be False. You cannot both be True.

1 John 2:27

 

[miknik5]

You are right, it had to be that way in order for the Word to fulfill all the requirements of the law.

The testimony of 2 or 3 were needed to confirm a truth.

So if you read John 8:16 you will find out who the 2 men were who testified of the truthfulness that Jesus was the Son of God.
John 8:16-18King James Version (KJV)
16 And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.
17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.
18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.

So Jesus says you need 2 men to establish the truth. Jesus goes on to say that he is 1 man and he bears witness of himself, and the Father is the second man that sent me and bearth witness of me.

Notice that Jesus uses the term 'men', there is a need of '2 men' to establish truth.

Jesus is referring to himself as a man, and he also refers to his Father as a man. Interesting don't you think.

Now it makes sense. Jesus, 1 God/Man, was sent to earth by a second, separate and distinct God/Man. It only makes sense now, God truely did send His Son. Jesus left his Father in heaven and came to earth, but the 2 of them testify that Jesus is the Christ and it establishes the truth of it. Perfect.

Ok

Who are the two who testify even now?

Do you think it is only men who are sent as HIS WITNESSES who are testifying and making their plea to men to be reconciled to THE FATHER in THE SON

What of THAT WITNESS in us who also testifies?

And who would that be?

 

[miknik5]

That doesn't address the question.

There are 30,000+ Christian denomination who vary on major issues like what is required for salvation, what books are in the Bible, does Christ has a personal representative on Earth, etc. They have every access to scripture and the Spirit as the other, but arrive at very different conclusions.

It is simple logic that only 1 can be Truth. How do you know that what you interpret out of the Bible is Truth and that the different Christian next door if False? Logic dictates that you could just as well be False. You cannot both be True.

With regards to the 30,000 + denominations


There shouldn't be
And it wasn't GOD's intention that we break off into different factions.

Al who have been baptized into CHRIST know they are born again of HIS SPIRIT and are gathered up and out of the world into HIS BODY and are HIS BRIDE

They are not limited by an outward denominational name

They are not the results of the works of men

They are not those who have been baptized by men

They are those who have received the SPIRIT in the same way that HIS FIRST DISCIPLES received the SPIRIT

No man, no outward structure of one particular denomination can lay claim or deter any who are baptized and born of HIS SPIRIT

This is why it is an obvious fault when certain men claim that they alone have authority to bring on THE HOLY SPIRIT

No man does

No man can bring on or deter the HOLY SPIRIT

The "wind" goes where it listeth

 

[miknik5]

ONE FOUNDATION
And our work is to REMAIN in HIM and not "go out" from HIM

 

[Peter1000]

Because 1 John 2:27 is TRUTH sir

1 John 2:27 is a statement by Jesus to his apostle John. No man need teach John because he was being taught by Jesus himself. But this scripture does not apply to you or me because we need teachers to teach us about God and Jesus.

If you read John 17:20-21 you will find out how important it is to have apostles around to teach people about God and Jesus.
John 17:20-21
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Then after we have been taught, we learn the full truth from the HS, and he confirms that what we are taught is true.

You believe on the Word of the Bible and pastor. I believe on the Word of the Bible and other scriptures and on living apostles of the Lord. That is a more sure testimony.

Once you have learned from the apostles, you can have a second witness from the HS, sent from Jesus (there is that word 'sent' again) who testifies of the truth of all things, especially that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, the Savior of the world.

 

[miknik5]

How can I respond to your post when you are clearly in error claiming that 1 John 2 was JESUS talking to HIS Disciple John?

It was John reminding all of those who have believed to remember what we began in and because this anointing is real and not counterfeit we do notneed for any man to teach us but as he has taught us to remain in Him.