He is the way
Well-Known Member
- Apr 17, 2018
- 8,103
- 359
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Many people have been wrong, Peter was wrong too.That's a pretty big mistake to make. I could understand if he gave into some human temptation to sin but to be so wrong on the identity of God as his living Prophet?
Adam talked with God therefore Adam is not God.
Jesus is not our God, He is our Lord, the Father is our God:By that reasoning your Jesus is not God.
... Jesus did not pray to Himself, therefore Jesus is NOT the Father...
Seriously?
Book of Mormon, Ether 3
14 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.
BoM, Mosiah 5
7 And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters.
BoM, Moroni 7
19 Wherefore, I beseech of you, brethren, that ye should search diligently in the light of Christ that ye may know good from evil; and if ye will lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not, ye certainly will be a child of Christ.
Bom, 3 Nephi 9
17 And as many as have received me, to them have I given to become the sons of God; and even so will I to as many as shall believe on my name, for behold, by me redemption cometh, and in me is the law of Moses fulfilled.
18 I am the light and the life of the world. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.
Jesus is not our God, He is our Lord, the Father is our God:
(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 8:6)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
They really have no idea what they actually believe, do they? Seems like they don't even know what their leaders actually believed either.
You don't understand the scriptures. In the end Jesus will relinquish all power and authority to the Father:Seriously?
Book of Mormon, Ether 3
14 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.
BoM, Mosiah 5
7 And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters.
BoM, Moroni 7
19 Wherefore, I beseech of you, brethren, that ye should search diligently in the light of Christ that ye may know good from evil; and if ye will lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not, ye certainly will be a child of Christ.
Bom, 3 Nephi 9
17 And as many as have received me, to them have I given to become the sons of God; and even so will I to as many as shall believe on my name, for behold, by me redemption cometh, and in me is the law of Moses fulfilled.
18 I am the light and the life of the world. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.
You don't understand the scriptures. In the end Jesus will relinquish all power and authority to the Father:
(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 15:24 - 28)
24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
Every person has their own interpretation of the scriptures. Origen had his also but who is Origen that I should respect his opinion? Is he a prophet of God?Your understanding of this passage is found in the history of the Church, but as usual not where you would want it to be if your religion was actually the restoration of the original, uncorrupted Christian faith, as it claims to be.
From the Alexandrian scholar Origen (c. 184-253), in his De Principiis (book 3), we read the following exposition:
I know not, indeed, how the heretics, not understanding the meaning of the apostle in these words, consider the term subjection degrading as applied to the Son; for if the propriety of the title be called in question, it may easily be ascertained from making a contrary supposition. Because if it be not good to be in subjection, it follows that the opposite will be good, viz., not to be in subjection. Now the language of the apostle, according to their view, appears to indicate by these words, "And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him," that He, who is not now in subjection to the Father, will become subject to Him when the Father shall have first subdued all things unto Him. But I am astonished how it can be conceived to be the meaning, that He who, while all things are not yet subdued to Him, is not Himself in subjection, should — at a time when all things have been subdued to Him, and when He has become King of all men, and holds sway over all things — be supposed then to be made subject, seeing He was not formerly in subjection; for such do not understand that the subjection of Christ to the Father indicates that our happiness has attained to perfection, and that the work undertaken by Him has been brought to a victorious termination, seeing He has not only purified the power of supreme government over the whole of creation, but presents to the Father the principles of the obedience and subjection of the human race in a corrected and improved condition. If, then, that subjection be held to be good and salutary by which the Son is said to be subject to the Father, it is an extremely rational and logical inference to deduce that the subjection also of enemies, which is said to be made to the Son of God, should be understood as being also salutary and useful; as if, when the Son is said to be subject to the Father, the perfect restoration of the whole of creation is signified, so also, when enemies are said to be subjected to the Son of God, the salvation of the conquered and the restoration of the lost is in that understood to consist.
+++
Origen, it should be noted, was in conflict with the Church in several matters during his life (hence I called him 'scholar' and not 'father'), so we should wonder how it is that even a condemned person such as he can show your understanding to be with the heretics at such an early date. If it is obvious enough to one who is often taken away by flights of theological and cosmological fancy, then it ought to be obvious to Christians more generally that what you have presented to us as 'understanding the scriptures' is not so. Or rather, it is an understanding, but not one that a Christian should embrace.
I believe Thomas should have said "my Lord my Savior." It would have been more appropriate.He is the way, you don't understand the scriptures.
John 10
26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. 27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
Every person has their own interpretation of the scriptures. Origen had his also but who is Origen that I should respect his opinion? Is he a prophet of God?
You said: "Don't you think that if Mormonism was really the 'restoration' of the early, uncorrupted Christian religion that it claims to be, we wouldn't find it to be 'restoring' ancient heresies, but instead forgotten truths?" Ancient truths like baptism for the dead mentioned in 1 Corinthians? There are other Biblical ordinances that were also restored. Infant baptism was not one of them. I do understand that you mean well. I believe it is necessary for a true church to have the binding power to bind on earth and in heaven which was given to Peter. I also believe that Christ's true church would have prophets and apostles:I frankly don't give a rip if you respect his opinion or not (it's not like the point is that Origen was such a great and dependable guy; that's why I included the bit about the condemnation of him by the Church); I present it because it is evidence that from a very early date (Origen having passed away c. 253 AD), the particular opinion that you have expressed was known as being that of heretics. As to who Origen is, he is a major theological figure in early Christianity, being the dean of the Catechetical school at Alexandria at an early date, whose students included future saints like St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, and future popes HH St. Heraclas and HH St. Dionysius.
Besides, this kind of quasi-objection does nothing to address the rebuke of your false reading. One could very easily ask the same thing about Joseph Smith, or any of the other leaders of your religion: who is Joseph Smith that anyone should care even the slightest bit about what he said about anything? He didn't talk to God; he wasn't a prophet.
Now before you react without thinking by bearing your testimony at me like a good Mormon-bot, I want you to notice: Did I just say anything about what is wrong with Joseph Smith's understanding of scripture by saying that he didn't talk to God and that he wasn't a prophet? No. I didn't. That's why it's parallel with what you just did in reaction to Origen's criticism, and why that reaction doesn't qualify as a real objection. Because the point is not the man in himself in either case, but that again here is a witness to the fact that roughly 1,600 years before anything like Mormonism could be said to exist, we see your own opinion -- which I will presume for the sake of argument is in line with what you are taught in your religion -- being torn down as unacceptable.
Don't you think that if Mormonism was really the 'restoration' of the early, uncorrupted Christian religion that it claims to be, we wouldn't find it to be 'restoring' ancient heresies, but instead forgotten truths? I don't think you knew anything about Origen's commentary before reading my post (or else you wouldn't have asked who he was), so isn't it at least a bit curious to find the understanding that you yourself endorsed addressed in it? Normally, Mormons here tend to jump at any chance you have to find your understandings in some early Christian source (as we've seen in the past with your coreligionist Peter1000's brief love affair with St. Justin Martyr on the preexistence of matter in creation, for example), as though that 'proves' that because it existed at an early date, it must therefore be true and is among the things forgotten or suppressed by the 'apostate' church of Mormon fantasy.
I believe Thomas should have said "my Lord my Savior." It would have been more appropriate.
Paul knew the importance of the ordinance of baptism for the dead:There is no baptism for the dead, you clueless potato. We've been over this several times. The only groups even adjacent to Christianity who ever practiced that were gnostic heretics who were condemned for this insanity in St. John Chrysostom. Their ridiculous misunderstanding of the scriptures parallels your own, of course. Heretics seem quite predictable this way throughout the ages, from the 4th century gnostics of St. John Chrysostom's time to Joseph Smith and beyond.
Why you'd want to throw yourself into the theological clown car being driven to hell by such people is beyond me, but regardless that doesn't change the fact that it's yet another condemned practice, being supposedly 'restored' by Mormonism. Ho hum. At this point I'd be more surprised if there was anything in Mormonism that isn't rank heresy being presented as "further light and knowledge", since it's obvious that nobody involved in leading Mormonism can tell the difference.
You would correct the word of God?
Lord, please have mercy.
Proverbs 30
5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
liar.
Romans 15:4
For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.
Paul knew the importance of the ordinance of baptism for the dead:
(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 15:29)
29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?
He already knew the answer to this question:
(New Testament | 1 Peter 3:19 - 22)
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.
(New Testament | 1 Peter 4:6)
6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.
Please read the context of the scripture. It is about the resurrection of the DEAD.He is talking about the SPIRITUALLY DEAD!! You post it, but you do not really see it!
"that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit"
The actual dead are not then living to God!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?