Christianity vs Mormonism : Bible, BOM & Nature of God

[straightforward]

Jodrey...I understand that you are being bombarded here. I don't think anyone just wants you to react rather than take the time to answer the questions posed. If you are going to reply to a question I would recommend you take your time and answer the question with references as you would ask us to do...not just react and throw out swift denials. I have tried to the best of my ability to do this for you. There are answers to the questions you are asking and I will dig up anything you ask if I have the resources to do so. Also, I would not be so quick to jump on other people for not answering your questions (mostly because they didn't answer them the way you would have liked them to) when you have left many pertinant questions unanswered yourself. Maybe we should all settle down a little and make sure we are answering to the best of our ability.
Peace,
Straightforward

 

[Jedi]

Why? We have all the information we can have on it, don't you agree?

No way! There’s no way humanity has all the information of the universe contained within the palm of their hands.

Yet it remains mathematically impossible. I don't think the universe works like that. There's nothing in phyics[sic] we've ever come to that works like that.

Well then, it’s a good thing God is a completely different matter than physics.

Didn't Jacod[sic] see God face to face, and didn't Moses speak with God, "as a man speaketh unto his friend"? This doesn't sound like bits and pieces to me.

I’ve heard Mormons try vainly to give these as examples before. What you're citing are examples of a theophany, nothing more. It is God taking on the form of something for the sake of the humans He’s talking to (i.e. a burning bush or a pillar of smoke on a Mountain). 1 John 4:12 says that no one has seen God. Other references that show that no one has seen God are John 1:18, 1 Tim. 6:15-16, and 1 John 4:20.

So then Jesus is like a body part of God? This would then be the psychological Trinity that I more or less agree with then, right? You know, the group-theory Trinity, rather than the three-is-one Trinity.

I still hold to a three persons in one essence Trinity, as that appears to be more along the lines of what the Bible teaches.

I entirely agree.

Wonderful.

Actually, Greek philosophy was quite prevalent among the Gentiles at this time period, which is probably the reason for Paul's warning against philosophies: they were a threat to the Church's true doctrine. To say that there were no philosophers, religious thinkers, or popular Pagan ways at that time and place is simply wrong.

And that’s why I didn’t say that. I’m saying that Paul continuously urged people to hold on to what they had been taught and not let Greek philosophy infiltrate them. That was my entire point.

Okay, then we'll get to it when the current debate dies down.

Yippy-skippy.

I agree, but you should take note that Jesus never actually explained the Trinity in any of His sermons or discourses. Was something left out? No, there is more evidence to suggest that He saw Himself as separate from the Father than as one being.

Not according to the research I’ve presented, especially in John, which contains a lot of his “self-revelatory” statements.

The lack of discussion on this topic should be proof enough that He didn't teach it, if you don't believe that the Bible is fallible.

Hardly. He taught it, but didn’t go out right and say it. That’s often how Jesus was. “Who do you say I am?” “Who do the people say I am?” That’s the kind of fellow He is.

I'll make a new post for this.

I can’t wait.

If more scripture is needed for this - I will supply it, although Jedi, you have done a fabulous job.

Why thank you. Words of encouragement go a long way.

 

[jodrey]

Gill Commentary:<B>Joh 17:22</B> - <B>And the glory which thou gavest me</B>,.... Not the glory of his deity; this is the same with his Father, what he has in right of nature, and not by gift; nor can it be communicated to creatures; this would be to make them one in the Godhead, as the three are one, which is not the design of the expression in the close of the verse: nor his mediatorial glory, which he had with the Father before the world began; this indeed was given him by the Father, but is not given to the saints: nor the glory, of working miracles; which glory Christ had, and which, as man, he had from the Father, and in which his own glory was manifested; this he gave to his disciples; but all that are his have not had it, and some have had it who are none of his: rather the Gospel is meant, which is glorious in its author, matter and subject, in its doctrines, in the blessing: grace it reveals, and promises it contains, and in the efficacy and usefulness of it to the souls of men. This was given to Christ, and he gave it to his disciples: <B>I have given them</B>; as he did the words that were given to him, <B>that they may be one, even as we are one</B>; for the Gospel was given to the apostles, and still is to the ministers of it, to bring men to the unity of the faith, for the perfecting of the saints, and the edifying of the body of Christ: or else the fulness both of grace and glory, which is in Christ's hands for his people, is here designed. This is one considerable branch of the glory of Christ, as Mediator, to be full of grace and truth; this was given him by the Father, and is what he communicates to his; even the Spirit, and all sorts of grace, and every supply of it; and which greatly contributes to the union of the saints among themselves: yea, eternal happiness is often signified by glory; and this is given to Christ; he has it in his hands to give to others; and he does give it, a view of it, a right unto it, a meetness for it, a pledge of it, some foretastes of it, and a kind of a possession of it; for the saints have it already, at least in him; and he will give them the actual enjoyment of it, and this in order to their consummate and perfect union together, as a glorious church without spot or wrinkle, or any such thing.

Wrong verse. Try verse 21. Verse 22 isn't explicit about us being one in Him the same way that He is one with the Father, but verse 21 is.

One with the Father does not mean being a god. For we are not created. However, Jesus ALWAYS existed - He is One with the Father as he is God.

I think you meant to say that we are created. No, being one in Christ as He is one with His Father does not mean that we will be Gods, that I agree with -- if you see it symbolically, which I do. However, according to Trinitarianism, this is literal (all the times that Jesus says that He and His Father are one), and so therefore you would actually become part of God, or be resolved into God somehow, losing your identity. Or, if not losing your identity then making the Trinity a Trilliony. This is my point, and you have yet to refute it.

I have to agree with Jedi. The Deity of Christ is black and white all over the Bible. Jesus is God, not a god or one of three gods - He is God. If more scripture is needed for this - I will supply it, although Jedi, you have done a fabulous job.

Again, 'God' can mean many things, and if you read it in context it usually appears as meaning 'Redeemer' instead of other possible definitions. So yes, this is true, and Mormons agree.

Godhead is a biblical saying - not a Mormon one. Trinitarians believe in a Godhead - of course we do, but our, the only God is Triune.

You're totally missing the significance of "Godhead" in the Bible. A Godhead is a group of multiple individuals, not one individual individual God. In these verses the author described that one 'God' as multiple Gods. Why is that? We can look at this from two different angles. (1) There are really three Gods and they are described as one God elsewhere as symbolism of unity. This is parallel to the idea of Adam and Eve (or any man and wife) being one flesh. It was of course not literal, but symbolic of unity. It's the same deal with the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost -- except that they're not married to each other, of course. There is another view of this too. (2) God is really only one being, but the use of the word "Godhead" was symbolic of the multiple forms God can take, or of His individual "persons." Frankly, I find the first explanation much more reasonable, although you are entitled to the second.

Woody said: FWIW, I am a Trinitarian and I haven't liked the analogies put forth to describe the <B>TRUE</B> Godhead. That doesn't mean they are wrong about the nature of God; it means that they are trying to "dumb it down" too much for your sake. The problem is that it doesn't need to be simplified with analogy. This <B>ain't</B> hard. It just requires a Spirit of Truth to reside in one's soul to understand it.

Is this Biblical or is it your opinion that God's nature can't be understood?

This has probably been answered already - but I am reading posts in order of appearance - so just in case....No, The Holy Spirit is the third person in the Trinity - He is God the Holy Spirit.

I was hoping straightforward would answer that, but that's okay. I'm trying to understand exactly what her belief in the Trinity is, because I think she's been saying that the Father and Holy Ghost are the same persons. Can you clarify what you really meant, forward?

I fail to see any inconsistancies so far - with the exclusion of a few 'egg' and 'triangle' quotes. Seems to me, those defending the Trinity all believe the sam: One God Only!!! One Being (God) Three persons (Father,Son,HolySpirit).

Once again, wasn't really addressed to you... I guess I should be more explicit in things like this.

 

[CCWoody]

Today at 02:34 PM jodrey said this in Post #171



If I accused you of not following Christ I'm sure you would see that as a personal insult, whether you take it seriously or not. This is exactly what Woody said of me.

Why don't we drop the dramatics.&nbsp; In the context of the conversation and to whom I was quoting it should have been obvious that I was talking about heretics within the visible church.

That don't include you.&nbsp; So, calm down!

It wasn't until you got a little excited that I responded directly to you.

However, if someone accused me of not following Christ it wouldn't bother me in the least.&nbsp; My sure knowledge of my standing IN Him has nothing to do with any need for others to recognize that standing.&nbsp; I have no need to be pleasing to you in this regard.&nbsp; I would simply cite it as more reason to know for sure that we are not disciples of the same Person.

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

 

[Jedi]

I think you meant to say that we are created. No, being one in Christ as He is one with His Father does not mean that we will be Gods, that I agree with -- if you see it symbolically, which I do. However, according to Trinitarianism, this is literal (all the times that Jesus says that He and His Father are one), and so therefore you would actually become part of God, or be resolved into God somehow, losing your identity. Or, if not losing your identity then making the Trinity a Trilliony. This is my point, and you have yet to refute it.

Just something that caught my attention. There's more than one way to take this. Who said that everything in the Bible must be taken literally? Everything in the Bible is literally true, but not true literally. Jesus is saying, "Help them to be one as you and I are one," however, this question remains: How are Jesus and the Father "one?" They are one in essence, but they are also one in purpose. I think Jesus was alluding to the second sense when he prayed this.

 

[Grace_Alone4gives]

Keep quoting Gill and I will start accusing you of being a Calvinist.

lol...I almost could be, on the fence really - but doubt I will hop over...hehehe. But being you are a Calvy, I will take that as a compliment brother

&nbsp;

(I struck your word not from the second sentence)

oopsy - thanks brother

 

[straightforward]

Today at 04:25 PM jodrey said this in Post #183
However, according to Trinitarianism, this is literal (all the times that Jesus says that He and His Father are one), and so therefore you would actually become part of God, or be resolved into God somehow, losing your identity. Or, if not losing your identity then making the Trinity a Trilliony. This is my point, and you have yet to refute it.

Well...if it is a matter of us all becoming part of God, or being absorbed into Him...How do we praise Him in heaven? This does not make any sense if we look simply at Revelation! Do I need to give chapter &amp; verse on this one to explain my point...or is it made?

I was hoping straightforward would answer that, but that's okay. I'm trying to understand exactly what her belief in the Trinity is, because I think she's been saying that the Father and Holy Ghost are the same persons. Can you clarify what you really meant, forward?

As I think I have made evident...I believe in the Trinity! Three persons&nbsp;= One God. I have been saying that the Father,&nbsp;and the Son,&nbsp;and the Holy Spirit are One God...not seperate gods.

 

[CCWoody]

Today at 03:25 PM jodrey said this in Post #183

I think you meant to say that we are created. No, being one in Christ as He is one with His Father does not mean that we will be Gods, that I agree with -- if you see it symbolically, which I do. However, according to Trinitarianism, this is literal (all the times that Jesus says that He and His Father are one), and so therefore you would actually become part of God, or be resolved into God somehow, losing your identity. Or, if not losing your identity then making the Trinity a Trilliony. This is my point, and you have yet to refute it.

I addressed your point.&nbsp; You understand neither the Trinity nor what it means to be a son.

There, I addressed it again.&nbsp; And, I'll do it one more time.

It is a stupid Straw man (and I'm being kind here).&nbsp; The Son is not "resolved into the Father" in that He has lost His identity.&nbsp; If you are going to beat us over the head with the Trinity, then beat us over the head with the Trinity.

Don't make up the morphing resolved God and then beat us over the head with that.&nbsp; We will just stare at you wondering what you are doing.

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

P.S.&nbsp; Are you going to address this verse, or can I assume that it plainly means what it says:&nbsp; And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living; for thus have I, the Lord God, called the first of all women, which are many.

 

[Grace_Alone4gives]

Wrong verse. Try verse 21. Verse 22 isn't explicit about us being one in Him the same way that He is one with the Father, but verse 21 is.

Very well then. This is from the Barnes commentary (sorry Woody, Gill is good, but extreamly long to post here)

John 17:20-21 -
Neither pray I for these alone ... - Not for the apostles only, but for all who shall be converted under the preaching of the gospel. They will all need similar grace and be exposed to similar trials. It is a matter of unspeakable joy that each Christian, however humble or unknown to men however poor, unlearned, or despised, can reflect that he was remembered in prayer by “him whom God heareth always.” We value the prayers of pious friends. How much more should we value this petition of the Son of God! To that single prayer we who are Christians owe infinitely more real benefits than the world can ever bestow; and in the midst of any trials we may remember that the Son of God prayed for us, and that the prayer was assuredly heard, and will be answered in reference to all who truly believe.
All may be one - May be united as brethren. Christians are all redeemed by the same blood, and are going to the same heaven. They have the same wants, the same enemies, the same joys. Though they are divided into different denominations, yet they will meet at last in the same homes of glory. Hence they should feel that they belong to the same family, and are children of the same God and Father. There are no ties so tender as those which bind us in the gospel. There is no friendship so pure and enduring as that which results from having the same attachment to the Lord Jesus. Hence, Christians, in the New Testament, are represented as being indissolubly united - parts of the same body, and members of the same family, Act_4:32-35; 1Co. 12:4-31; Eph_2:20-22; Rom_12:5. On the ground of this union they are exhorted to love one another, to bear one another’s burdens, and to study the things that make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another, Eph_4:3; Rom_12:5-16.
As thou, Father, art in me - See Joh_14:10. This does not affirm that the union between Christians should be in all respects like that between the Father and the Son, but only in the points in which they are capable of being compared. It is not the union of nature which is referred to, but the union of plan, of counsel, of purpose seeking the same objects, and manifesting attachment to the same things, and a desire to promote the same ends.
That they also may be one in us - To be in God and in Christ is to be united to God and Christ. The expression is common in the New Testament. The phrase used here denotes a union among all Christians founded on and resulting from a union to the same God and Saviour.
That the world may believe ... - That the world, so full of animosities and fightings, may see the power of Christian principle in overcoming the sources of contention and producing love, and may thus see that a religion that could produce this must be from heaven. See the notes at Joh_13:34. This was done. Such was the attachment of the early Christians to each other, that a pagan was constrained to say, “See how these Christians love one another!”

I think you meant to say that we are created. No, being one in Christ as He is one with His Father does not mean that we will be Gods, that I agree with -- if you see it symbolically, which I do. However, according to Trinitarianism, this is literal (all the times that Jesus says that He and His Father are one), and so therefore you would actually become part of God, or be resolved into God somehow, losing your identity. Or, if not losing your identity then making the Trinity a Trilliony. This is my point, and you have yet to refute it.

What???? You think Christians believe they will be gods? or part of God? Perhaps I misunderstood you - do you mind rephrasing your statement?

Is this Biblical or is it your opinion that God's nature can't be understood?

Biblical that we can not comprehend the mind of God - but the Holy Spirit confirms His nature (as Woody put it). Thos are my thoughts as I have stated before. See my last post on page 17.

 

[jodrey]

No way! There’s no way humanity has all the information of the universe contained within the palm of their hands.

Meant the Trinity, not the Universe.

Well then, it’s a good thing God is a completely different matter than physics.

So then you're admitting that God's nature can't be understood?

I’ve heard Mormons try vainly to give these as examples before. What you're citing are examples of a theophany, nothing more. It is God taking on the form of something for the sake of the humans He’s talking to (i.e. a burning bush or a pillar of smoke on a Mountain). 1 John 4:12 says that no one has seen God. Other references that show that no one has seen God are John 1:18, 1 Tim. 6:15-16, and 1 John 4:20.

Now that's interesting. Are we to come to the conclusion then that Jesus is not God? Of course not. Even if that was just a form God took, are we still not seeing God? For example, if I dress up like a mummy for a Halloween party will people see me? I think so. Even if they don't recognize me, it will still be me that they're looking at. That being said, further speculation is required to understand what was really meant, and which of these concepts, if either, was literal; we can't have contradictions in the Bible now, can we?

I think we can figure out what was meant by looking up Exodus 33: 20-23, "And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock: And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen." The detailed nature of this instruction indicates that it was literal. God here wasn't talking in symbolism. The face of whatever "form" (according to the Trinity) He took on at that time could not be seen while leaving Moses alive. In fact, it is pretty clear that those righteous who die do see the face of God. Take, for example, Job 19:26 and Matthew 5: 8. Now, Paul (then Saul) saw Christ and was left alive. How is that explained? Of course, the same happened to Joseph Smith, but here it is even clearer that he saw God the Father AND the Son. No man can behold all the glory of God and yet live; however, some did. How is this possible? How was Moses able to speak with God face to face and not die, or Joseph Smith to behold what was most likely the entire Godhead and remain alive? I'll leave it at this for now.

 

[jodrey]

Okay, I'm out for the night. I have to post here less, I have too many things to do. See yas later.

 

[Grace_Alone4gives]

I think we can figure out what was meant by looking up Exodus 33: 20-23, "And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock: And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen." The detailed nature of this instruction indicates that it was literal. God here wasn't talking in symbolism. The face of whatever "form" (according to the Trinity) He took on at that time could not be seen while leaving Moses alive.

Firstly, just to clarify - God does not 'take on a form' that is not what the Trinity teaches...that is maybe what the Oneness Movement believers teach - but not Trinitarian.

As for the verse - Here is something from Gill's commentart on the subject for your reading. (note my HTML isnt working great)

Exo 33:23 - And I will take away mine hand,.... As being covered with the hand may signify the obscurity of the former dispensation, the taking of it away may denote a more clear revelation of the grace and goodness of God in Christ, and so of the glory of it under the Gospel dispensation; and yet what is seen in this, in comparison of the reality of things as they are, or of the heavenly state, are but as next expressed:
and thou shalt see my back parts; which some understand of the humanity of Christ, and his sufferings in it, sometimes expressed by his heel, and the bruising of it, Gen_3:15 or else the works of God in creation, by which the invisible things of God are seen, and which give a knowledge of him "a posteriori"; and so Maimonides (d) interprets the phrase, which follow me, flow from my will, i.e. all my creatures: or rather it denotes the imperfect knowledge of God in the present state, even as revealed in Christ, in whom there are the clearest and brightest displays of his glory; yet this, in comparison of the beatific sight of him, is but like seeing a man that is gone by, whose back is only to be seen:

but my face shall not be seen; in the present state, the face of God, that is, his favour, communion with him, and the light of his countenance, are to be sought for, and may be enjoyed; the glory of himself is to be seen in the face or person of Christ, and the glory of that face or person is to be seen in the glass of the Gospel, but at present imperfectly; God in Christ as he is, the fullest and brightest displays of his glory, grace, and goodness, are reserved to another state, see 1Co_13:9 or it may regard the divine nature of Christ, which could not be seen by Moses, but his back parts, or human; Christ as clothed with flesh might, and would be seen by him, as he was seen by him on the mount, Mat_17:3.

And furthermore Henry commentary (it is simpler than Gill, but easier to understand if Gill is too confusing for study)

Exo_33:20. A full discovery of the glory of God would quite overpower the faculties of any mortal man in this present state, and overwhelm him, even Moses himself. Man is mean and unworthy of it, weak and could not bear it, guilty and could not but dread it. It is in compassion to our infirmity that God holdeth back the face of his throne, and spreadeth a cloud upon it, Job_26:9. God has said that here (that is, in this world) his face shall not be seen (Exo_33:23); that is an honour reserved for the future state, to be the eternal bliss of holy souls: should men in this state know what it is, they would not be content to live short of it. There is a knowledge and enjoyment of God which must be waited for in another world, when we shall see him as he is, 1Jo_3:2. In the mean time let us adore the height of what we do know of God, and the depth of what we do not.

Just something to reflect on.....came across it while looking into the verses.

 

[Jedi]

Now that's interesting. Are we to come to the conclusion then that Jesus is not God? Of course not.

Is Jesus God in all His full splendor? Of course not. Jesus is God in bodily form (Colossians 2:9).

Even if that was just a form God took, are we still not seeing God?

Not as he truly is. Suppose I put on a full body costume at a costume party. You can see me, but you aren’t really seeing me – only the form I’ve chosen to represent me.

That being said, further speculation is required to understand what was really meant, and which of these concepts, if either, was literal; we can't have contradictions in the Bible now, can we?

Nope, and so far, you’ve failed to point out any real contradiction concerning this matter.

I think we can figure out what was meant by looking up Exodus 33: 20-23… The detailed nature of this instruction indicates that it was literal.

So? God took a literal form (“Theophany”) for the sake of Mr. Moses. No big deal. Again, 1 John repeatedly tells us that no one has ever seen God. You have yet to address any of those passages, and understandably so, since they are very clear. Your argument lies now not with me, but with the Bible.

In fact, it is pretty clear that those righteous who die do see the face of God. Take, for example, Job 19:26 and Matthew 5: 8.

And? This is all post earth, post physical body context, and even then, it never says that these people will ever see God in his full splendor/true form.

Now, Paul (then Saul) saw Christ and was left alive. How is that explained?

Christ is God in bodily form (Colossians 2:9) like I’ve said before.

Of course, the same happened to Joseph Smith, but here it is even clearer that he saw God the Father AND the Son.

Joseph Smith… heh. Right.

No man can behold all the glory of God and yet live; however, some did. How is this possible?

The word of the day is “Theophany.”

 

[CCWoody]

Today at 04:26 PM HopeTheyDance said this in Post #192

And furthermore Henry commentary (it is simpler than Gill, but easier to understand if Gill is too confusing for study)

Gill and Henry, both of them Calvinist!!!&nbsp; Be still my beating heart!

Ok, back to Hellenism, which jodrey wants to discuss.&nbsp; He might be interested to know that his Mormonism contains&nbsp;some Hellenistic ideas which are in naked opposition to the Christian interpretation of scriptures:

• 'ex nihilo', the Christian view of creation.
• The Mormon view, OTOH, is Hellenistic in that it dealt with "pre-existing" matter that was reorganized.

Should we now brand Mormonism as steeped in Hellenism and corrupted by their thinking?

I think I'll just wait for jodrey to provide his "proof" that the early chuch fathers believed in the LDS version of the Godhead.

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

 

[Jedi]

Should we now brand Mormonism as steeped in Hellenism and corrupted by their thinking?

Heh, good one.

 

[LastMaxim]

Should we now brand Mormonism as steeped in Hellenism and corrupted by their thinking?

...excellent...

 

[Wrigley]

Today at 07:24 PM CCWoody said this in Post #194



Gill and Henry, both of them Calvinist!!!&nbsp; Be still my beating heart!

Ok, back to Hellenism, which jodrey wants to discuss.&nbsp; He might be interested to know that his Mormonism contains&nbsp;some Hellenistic ideas which are in naked opposition to the Christian interpretation of scriptures:

• 'ex nihilo', the Christian view of creation.
• The Mormon view, OTOH, is Hellenistic in that it dealt with "pre-existing" matter that was reorganized.

Should we now brand Mormonism as steeped in Hellenism and corrupted by their thinking?

I think I'll just wait for jodrey to provide his "proof" that the early chuch fathers believed in the LDS version of the Godhead.

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

Hmm. Nothing gets past you.

 

[CCWoody]

Today at 04:57 PM Jedi said this in Post #195



Heh, good one.

Actually, I bring it up to show that jodrey is actually off on a rabbit chase right now.&nbsp; It is classically called "Guilt by association" and is a dishonest debate tactic.

Mormonism isn't wrong because I can associate it with and find Hellenistic things in it.
Mormonism is wrong because it denies the Lord, among its many reasons.

I'm hoping he gets the idea without me having to pull out a big gun.

So, if we can dispense with this Hellenism nonsense, we can actually get down to jodrey actually trying to show how the doctrine of the Trinity is not Biblical.

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

 

[Grace_Alone4gives]

I also must say Bravo! It appears we have someone who ought to write Apologetics here.

 

[CCWoody]

Today at 06:46 PM HopeTheyDance said this in Post #199

I also must say Bravo! It appears we have someone who ought to write Apologetics here.

Just remember that earlier today when everyone (but jodrey) liked something I posted, jodrey got a little excited about it.

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

P.S.&nbsp; Since jodrey doesn't seem to want to address this verse:

• And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living; for thus have I, the Lord God, called the first of all women, which are many.

I'll just throw it out on the thread now and see what the "survey says" about it.&nbsp; Question....

Who named Eve:

1. Adam
2. The Lord (Jehovah = the Son)
3. Adam = God