LDS Heavenly Father

[Hammster]

It is a better translation and avoids the obvious error of the translators words of Jesus.

And so, like I say, between members we have no problems with John 4:24, we understand what Jesus was saying, and we are comfortable with it.

For God is not just a spirit floating around the universe eyeballing every molecule, we know that. The KJN translation confuses people about the nature of God, which is not necessary. We know that is God is just a spirit, then we would be just spirits too, being created after his image and his likeness.

So like I say we are very comfortable with our belief system in the nature of God. John 4:24 is not uncomfortable for us, because we know that God is spirit + flesh and bone, and he is a spiritual person, so if you want to say that God is a spirit, that is fine with us.

It’s a better translation than the inspired JST?

 

[Religiot]

That's good, and I apologize.



Which God do you think I am referring to that was begotten? God the Father, God the Son, or God the Holy Spirit?



By applying Occams's razor I am not forced to answer any question. Occam's razor is simply a logical way to answer a multi-answerable proboem. The solution is to take the most simple solution. The simplist solution to, Is God the Origin, the answer is yes.

The bigger question is how did he become the Origin? The simplist answer to this is we do not know.



Again, I have to ask, which God is talking to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? God the Father, God the Son or God the Holy Spirit?


It is not false. God the Father begot his Son Jesus Christ. And another God was formed. And from Psalms, God the Father calls Jesus God with his own throne. And God the Father is anointed his Son God with oil above that of his fellows (interesting word. Are these 'fellows', Jesus's friends, associates, brothers, fellow spirit children??????)

So just the word 'begotten' infers another one comes forth. A second one comes forth.
So erase the word 'begotten' from the scriptures and the problem is solved. Leave it and it will always refer to a Son that was born to God the Father, a Son that became a God too.

The Lord (God the Father) said to my Lord (His Son Jehovah/Jesus) come and sit on my right side until I make your enemies your footstool. Can't be just 1 God is 2 Gods are sitting side by side in heaven. Right? (Psalms 110:1)


You are right God begets God. God the Father begot His Son Jesus Christ who is a God.


Scriptural reference that God can do whatever He wants? Can he murder and rape? Or is He limited by His own laws and eternal principals? The same laws that limit a man from doing anything he wants. God can't command that we obey Him, and then He does not obey Himself. He would be no better than the Greek gods of mythology.

Scriptural referece for God determined His own nature?

Can you find the words 'uncreated' or 'self existing' in the bible?

I will answer your from the last to the first:

The answer is in His name, 'Jehovah', which literally means the self existent one.

If God does not determine His own nature, then He must be created.

God does what ever He wants, period:

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." --Isaiah 45:7

"Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." --Revelation 4:11

(I'm so glad that what pleases Him is good.)

Yes, there are two, but remember, tho Christ has the same nature as His Father, He does not occupy the same position as God to God, for there can only be one true God, and He is the God of Christ.

God does not have to beget apart from Himself.

You conflate the word beget and formed, this to is false, for beget is to bring forth from within you, while form means to create from without you; e.g., Christ was begotten, Adam was formed.

Fellows means brothers--He is, after all, the firstbegotten, a term which denotes that God will beget more.

To ask "how God became the Origin" presuppose that at one point He was not, which assumes the truthfulness of the basis of your argument, which is literally, the very thing I am arguing against. --I hope you can see, that that is not the "bigger question" but that it is merely begging the question.

...Occam's razor is just the process of eliminating the unnecessary in order to facilitate deduction to conclusion.

It is unnecessary to consider all other God's before God: to conclude that He is not the origin only requires just one God before Him...

God the Father is not begotten, but the Son is, and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of both.

God's nature cannot be fully understood by us now, but what is easy to understand is what He has revealed about Himself, through His Son, that He is one, and that He begat a Son, and that we must obey His Son.

 

[Peter1000]

No, there’s no difference. I’m not sure why you care, though, since you must submit to the JST.

Its just a matter of interest that 2 bible translations of the same verse have it different. Does that not interest you?

 

[Hammster]

Its just a matter of interest that 2 bible translations of the same verse have it different. Does that not interest you?

What interests me is that you wouldn’t want to make the comparison between the JST and say, the NASB. Why you’d use the KJV in this case is beyond me.

 

[Peter1000]

It’s a better translation than the inspired JST?

Well, that all depends on the person. I can show you many scriptures in the bible that informs us that God is not just a 'spirit', but you throw away all of those scriptures because of John 4:24. You rip at least 10 scriptures out of the bible and disregard completely their words of what they say about the make-up of God, because what I believe is a false translation of
John 4:24. It has confused people for over 2,000 years now.

We are comfortable with it because we know what it is trying to say, but doesn't do a very good job. That is how we are with the entire bible. We are comfortable with the entire translation because we have prophets and apostles that let us know what the truth really is, getting their information directly from Jesus Christ.

 

[Peter1000]

What interests me is that you wouldn’t want to make the comparison between the JST and say, the NASB. Why you’d use the KJV in this case is beyond me.

If there is no difference between the KJV and the NASB as to John 4:24, then why is that beyond you?

 

[Hammster]

If there is no difference between the KJV and the NASB as to John 4:24, then why is that beyond you?

My point is why not use the JST?

 

[Hammster]

Well, that all depends on the person.

If the LDS considers it to be inspired, how does personal preference fit in?

 

[Peter1000]

I will answer your from the last to the first:
The answer is in His name, 'Jehovah', which literally means the self existent one.

I did 10 minutes worth of study on the meaning of the name 'Jehovah' and come up with for meanings:
You alone are the most High
Eternal one, self existent
He brings the host into existence
He brings into existence anything that exists

So as everything in religion, there are many meaning for the name Jehovah, which one is the real name? Just try to give me any details on what 'Self Existent' means. You can use words like "he stand outside of time and space", and he is 'uncreated', but all of that does not get to the bottom of "how" He is. Like I say, try to find the words 'self existent' in the bible. You won't.

If God does not determine His own nature, then He must be created.

And if one is created, does that exclude that person from becoming an 'all powerful' being in millions of earth years? We already know that our vile created mortal bodies will be changed into a resurrected, incoruptible, immortal (will live forever and never give out again) body, just like the body of the Lord Jesus. So what is so degrading about having been created. Cannot the Creator give to the created everything that He has, even His divinity? Is our all powerful Creator not powerful enough to endow his creation with divinity? What scholar came up with the idea that since we are created, we can not be divine? This idea means there are limits to God's power. I agree with you that God is "all powerful".

Yes, there are two, but remember, tho Christ has the same nature as His Father, He does not occupy the same position as God to God, for there can only be one true God, and He is the God of Christ.

Yes, there are 2, and Jesus cannot occupy the same position as God the Father, nor can Jesus occupy the same space in time as God the Father. They are 2 distinct and separate Individuals with one purpose and one goal, to bring about the Eternal life of mortal men. Do you understand what Eternal Life means? It means the same kind of life that God lives.

Fellows means brothers--He is, after all, the firstbegotten, a term which denotes that God will beget more.

Interesting scripture, Psalms 45:6-7 is an interesting passage. When did that conversation take place? Before the earth was finished. Where did that conversation take place? In heaven. Who was the conversation between? 2 Gods, God the Father, talking to his Son, God the Son.
Conclusion: The Sons 'fellows' alrady existed in heaven before the earth was completed. Interesting don't you think?

To ask "how God became the Origin" presuppose that at one point He was not, which assumes the truthfulness of the basis of your argument, which is literally, the very thing I am arguing against. --I hope you can see, that that is not the "bigger question" but that it is merely begging the question.

Yes, I can see your point. If God 'became', he didn't exist before he 'became'. So I will go a different direction. How did God become all powerful?

It is unnecessary to consider all other God's before God: to conclude that He is not the origin only requires just one God before Him...

It is unnecessary to consider all other God's before God: Therefore we conclude that He is the origin of our heaven and our earth as stated in Genesis 1:1, and all things within that heaven and earth.
He is of a long line of holy Gods, that make up the word God. God is the origin of everything in the universe and beyond our knowledge of things.

God's nature cannot be fully understood by us now, but what is easy to understand is what He has revealed about Himself, through His Son, that He is one, and that He begat a Son, and that we must obey His Son.

You are right. God's full nature cannot be fully understood by us now. Jesus has revealed at least part of His nature. Since Jesus is an exact image of his Father, his Father must look just like him. This much we do know, which is an important incite into the nature of God the Father. When we meet them, we will be given all the secrets and it will be an interesting day to sit at their feet and here the full truth.

 

[Peter1000]

My point is why not use the JST?

We do, but if I said to you, I will quote from the JST, you would reject it without discussion, so I use the KJV, which you are at least willing to listen to.

 

[Peter1000]

If the LDS considers it to be inspired, how does personal preference fit in?

Again if you think it is disgusting and ungodly, then I cannot use it for discussion purposes for you will reject any reference to JST, so I do not. It's like if I were to show you a scripture from the BOM and try to discuss a topic there. What would you say?

 

[Daniel Marsh]

It’s a better translation than the inspired JST?

The Rest of the Story or Facts,

Verse 24
God is a Spirit (πνευμα ο τεος — pneuma ho theos). More precisely, “God is Spirit” as “God is Light” (1 John 1:5), “God is Love” (1 John 4:8). In neither case can we read Spirit is God, Light is God, Love is God. The non-corporeality of God is clearly stated and the personality of God also. All this is put in three words for the first time.

Must (δει — dei). Here is the real necessity (δει — dei), not the one used by the woman about the right place of worship (John 4:20).

 

[Hammster]

We do, but if I said to you, I will quote from the JST, you would reject it without discussion, so I use the KJV, which you are at least willing to listen to.

But if what you really mean is what the JST says, then what’s the difference?

 

[Hammster]

Again if you think it is disgusting and ungodly, then I cannot use it for discussion purposes for you will reject any reference to JST, so I do not. It's like if I were to show you a scripture from the BOM and try to discuss a topic there. What would you say?

He is the Way did. I discussed the passage with him.

 

[Peter1000]

He is the Way did. I discussed the passage with him.

If you are OK with that, then I will be willing to use JST

 

[Hammster]

If you are OK with that, then I will be willing to use JST

After all that...

Use whatever you want. I just don’t want to be in a discussion about a particular verse and then y’all switch to the JST. Whatever you choose, run with it.

 

[Religiot]

I did 10 minutes worth of study on the meaning of the name 'Jehovah' and come up with for meanings:
You alone are the most High
Eternal one, self existent
He brings the host into existence
He brings into existence anything that exists

So as everything in religion, there are many meaning for the name Jehovah, which one is the real name? Just try to give me any details on what 'Self Existent' means. You can use words like "he stand outside of time and space", and he is 'uncreated', but all of that does not get to the bottom of "how" He is. Like I say, try to find the words 'self existent' in the bible. You won't.


And if one is created, does that exclude that person from becoming an 'all powerful' being in millions of earth years? We already know that our vile created mortal bodies will be changed into a resurrected, incoruptible, immortal (will live forever and never give out again) body, just like the body of the Lord Jesus. So what is so degrading about having been created. Cannot the Creator give to the created everything that He has, even His divinity? Is our all powerful Creator not powerful enough to endow his creation with divinity? What scholar came up with the idea that since we are created, we can not be divine? This idea means there are limits to God's power. I agree with you that God is "all powerful".



Yes, there are 2, and Jesus cannot occupy the same position as God the Father, nor can Jesus occupy the same space in time as God the Father. They are 2 distinct and separate Individuals with one purpose and one goal, to bring about the Eternal life of mortal men. Do you understand what Eternal Life means? It means the same kind of life that God lives.


Interesting scripture, Psalms 45:6-7 is an interesting passage. When did that conversation take place? Before the earth was finished. Where did that conversation take place? In heaven. Who was the conversation between? 2 Gods, God the Father, talking to his Son, God the Son.
Conclusion: The Sons 'fellows' alrady existed in heaven before the earth was completed. Interesting don't you think?



Yes, I can see your point. If God 'became', he didn't exist before he 'became'. So I will go a different direction. How did God become all powerful?


It is unnecessary to consider all other God's before God: Therefore we conclude that He is the origin of our heaven and our earth as stated in Genesis 1:1, and all things within that heaven and earth.
He is of a long line of holy Gods, that make up the word God. God is the origin of everything in the universe and beyond our knowledge of things.


You are right. God's full nature cannot be fully understood by us now. Jesus has revealed at least part of His nature. Since Jesus is an exact image of his Father, his Father must look just like him. This much we do know, which is an important incite into the nature of God the Father. When we meet them, we will be given all the secrets and it will be an interesting day to sit at their feet and here the full truth.

God has revealed Himself as The Origin, unqualified, period.

You deny that, and my efforts in this conversation have been unfruitful.

I cannot continue with this conversation, because to do so, would be disobedience to what the Spirit has expressly said to the Churches.

I hope you soon turn from your present way of thinking, to the simplicity that was revealed by Christ.

Fear God first--genuinely--and the rest will follow.

Goodbye.

 

[Peter1000]

After all that...

Use whatever you want. I just don’t want to be in a discussion about a particular verse and then y’all switch to the JST. Whatever you choose, run with it.

I did not do that and you know it.

 

[Peter1000]

God has revealed Himself as The Origin, unqualified, period.

You deny that, and my efforts in this conversation have been unfruitful.

I cannot continue with this conversation, because to do so, would be disobedience to what the Spirit has expressly said to the Churches.

I hope you soon turn from your present way of thinking, to the simplicity that was revealed by Christ.

Fear God first--genuinely--and the rest will follow.

Goodbye.

Thank you for the discussion. One last thought. What did Christ reveal about the Father? Let me show you.
John 5:19-20 King James Version (KJV)
19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

Jesus can do nothing except what he sees his Father do. And what ever the Father doeth, these also the Son doeth.
The Father loveth the Son and shows him all thing that He God the Father doeth.

When and where did the Father doeth the things that He shows Jesus what to do?

Think about this question and give me an answer.

 

[Hammster]

I did not do that and you know it.

It’s happened, though.