Praise to the Man!

[MormonFriend]

Mormon Friend...well to find the meaning in them, one must first read in context which mean not just one verse of proof texting but rather the verse right before and after it so lets see what exactly IS the message of this first verse...

God Bless-
Grace

Context in this case is secondary. I was not referring to the actual message of this chapter. It illustrates how a true and correct principle can be applied to many different situations or "context." The principle that is contained within this chapter is an example of how it is that when two or more persons work for the same purpose, they are called "one."

Jesus in His great intercessory prayer made it more clear and to the point.

11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. (John17:11)

His disciples will become one as God and Jesus are one. Will they become one disciple? Or will they be many that are united in thought, in heart, in desire, in service, ....in purpose!

 

[MormonFriend]

Actually none of the things that you mentioned say anything about becoming gods, even though a few are NOT in the Bible. For example:

#3 - Satan said that man could become like God - that was the lie in the gardne. God said that that Adam and Eve only gained knowledge of good and evil when they feel. Prior to that, no evil was in the world, therefore they did not have knwoledge of evil, so gaining that knowledge was declared a sin by God for our own protection. Man violated that and fell, he did not become like God.

#5 - Those who receive Jesus Christ as saviour are adopted sons.

#7 - No one is worthy except Jesus himself.

Rev 5:4-5
4 So I wept much, because no one was found worthy to open and read the scroll, or to look at it. 5 But one of the elders said to me, "Do not weep. Behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has prevailed to open the scroll and to loose its seven seals."
NKJV

#8 - show me this in the Bible. Please note that when Jesus died on the cross, the veil was rent showing that the priesthodo was no longer required to mediate between men and God, but rather the priesthood was prophetic of Jesus, who the Bible says is the only High priest and all who are true belivers are a priesthood of believers. Nowhere is authority delegated to a select group of priests. Also, there is now one Apostle according to the Bible.

#9 - where does the Bible say that we have power ot create life? Mormonism has taught that even God cannot do that.

Show me that you understand the Bible. Prove it.

 

[calgal]

Show me that you understand the Bible. Prove it.

Who are the GODS in the COUNCIL OF THE GODS referred to in the Pearl of Great Price? Who was the first of your multiplicity of Godlets? Is not the belief in many gods that your Prophet Joseph Smith (Sbuhn) espoused more similar to Wiccan and Pagan polytheistic beliefs? Prove to me that you are not a polytheistic godlet in training please.

 

[Toms777]

Show me that you understand the Bible. Prove it.

Hmm...you were the one who made the claims. Seems to me that you are the one who needs to provide backup for your claims.

I asked that you show me where in the Bible it endorses the doctrine that men can become God or gods. You gave opinions and claims but no Bible references.

 

[Toms777]

Genesis 3:22
22 ¶ And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

FB: Tom, you say that Satan lied to Adam and Eve about becoming as god, yet the Lord God said after they had partaken of the fruit, that they had become like them. Did God lie also?

God did not say that they became like him, he said that they now knew good and evil. Before they sinned, they knew only good, because they did notknow sin. After they sinned, they now experienced evil. Prior to that God knew good and evil but Adam and Eve only knew good.

Where here does this address deification of man> It is quite the opposite, it is man acceptinga lie of Satan, who offered deification only to have Adam and Eve fall into sin and condemnation, and fall out of their relationship with God.

 

[MormonFriend]

Who are the GODS in the COUNCIL OF THE GODS referred to in the Pearl of Great Price? Who was the first of your multiplicity of Godlets? Is not the belief in many gods that your Prophet Joseph Smith (Sbuhn) espoused more similar to Wiccan and Pagan polytheistic beliefs? Prove to me that you are not a polytheistic godlet in training please.

I will be the first one to declare that I cannot prove anything about the things of God to another person. This is my point to Tom. One can only prove things to and for him/her self.

The issue here is that the things of God are only understood by the Spirit of God. A person must have the company of the Holy Ghost to understand. The only evidence of those that understand is also "hidden" from those who don't understand. They who receive knowledge from God will see eye to eye in all things. Those who do not experince such learning can only see a group of people that are united and one, and never quite figure out how they do it.

 

[Toms777]

I will be the first one to declare that I cannot prove anything about the things of God to another person. This is my point to Tom. One can only prove things to and for him/her self.

The issue here is that the things of God are only understood by the Spirit of God. A person must have the company of the Holy Ghost to understand. The only evidence of those that understand is also "hidden" from those who don't understand. They who receive knowledge from God will see eye to eye in all things. Those who do not experince such learning can only see a group of people that are united and one, and never quite figure out how they do it.

God gave us the Bible to reveal himself to us. I have the Holy Ghopst indwelling me and God, through His word in the Bible has promised to help those whom he indwells to have understanding.

Now, where in the Bible does it endorse the doctrine that man can become God or gods?

 

[MormonFriend]

Hmm...you were the one who made the claims. Seems to me that you are the one who needs to provide backup for your claims.

I asked that you show me where in the Bible it endorses the doctrine that men can become God or gods. You gave opinions and claims but no Bible references.

Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach him to fish, ......

Why show you things in the Bible before you know how to understand the Bible. The Bible itself teaches how to understand. Can you name them? Please do not take this as confrontational. It is a very valid point to consider, and I would say the same challenge applies to me as well. We argue and debate over what this or that means. Why go through this if it is clear that we must first difine what it is that gives us clear understanding.

 

[Toms777]

Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach him to fish, ......

Why show you things in the Bible before you know how to understand the Bible.

Stop the personal attacks and deal with the issue. Ad hominems are not appropriate. I could question your ability to understand also, but I have not done so and do not intend to do so. I expect the same respect from you.

Now, please show me where in the Bible that it endorses the doctrine that men can become God or gods.

 

[MormonFriend]

Stop the personal attacks and deal with the issue. Ad hominems are not appropriate. I could question your ability to understand also, but I have not done so and do not intend to do so. I expect the same respect from you.

Now, please show me where in the Bible that it endorses the doctrine that men can become God or gods.

You know Tom that it is improper and considered "yellow journalism" to quote someone partially and not put the dots ..... , indication of more to that sentance or paragraph. Lets look at the whole paragraph that you posted partially.

Why show you things in the Bible before you know how to understand the Bible. The Bible itself teaches how to understand. Can you name them? Please do not take this as confrontational. It is a very valid point to consider, and I would say the same challenge applies to me as well. We argue and debate over what this or that means. Why go through this if it is clear that we must first difine what it is that gives us clear understanding.

And you only quoted me as

Why show you things in the Bible before you know how to understand the Bible.

And you say:

Stop the personal attacks and deal with the issue. Ad hominems are not appropriate. I could question your ability to understand also, but I have not done so and do not intend to do so. I expect the same respect from you.

So, since I said:"...Please do not take this as confrontational. It is a very valid point to consider, and I would say the same challenge applies to me as well. ...."; in the same paragraph, I am obviously not making a personal attack, since I said the same would apply to me as well.

It is like the story of the Russian newspaper article reporting on the Olympics. "Russians come in second place and USA came in 2nd to last." What they ommitted is that there were only two contestants.

If you questioned my ability to understand, it would not offend me. "The only dumb question is the one you didn't ask."... they say. If you have reason to question my method of undertanding, why go on teaching me what you see as truth if you know I am not going to understand it?

 

[happyinhisgrace]

Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach him to fish, ......

Why show you things in the Bible before you know how to understand the Bible. The Bible itself teaches how to understand. Can you name them? Please do not take this as confrontational. It is a very valid point to consider, and I would say the same challenge applies to me as well. We argue and debate over what this or that means. Why go through this if it is clear that we must first difine what it is that gives us clear understanding.

Wow, I have not heard anything that condesending and puffed up in a very long time. Mormon Friend, do you honestly not see how very self-righteous and inappropriate that comment is?

Grace

 

[Der Alte]

Show me that you understand the Bible. Prove it.

Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach him to fish, ......

Why show you things in the Bible before you know how to understand the Bible. The Bible itself teaches how to understand. Can you name them? Please do not take this as confrontational. It is a very valid point to consider, and I would say the same challenge applies to me as well. We argue and debate over what this or that means. Why go through this if it is clear that we must first difine what it is that gives us clear understanding.

That sounds fair to me. Show me that you understand the Bible. Prove it. Give us your clear understanding of this passage.

ויפתח יהוה את-פי האתון​

​

 

[Toms777]

You know Tom that it is improper and considered "yellow journalism" to quote someone partially and not put the dots ..... , indication of more to that sentance or paragraph. Lets look at the whole paragraph that you posted partially.

Hmm....look at your original comemnts - it was you who did that.

Luke 6:42
42 Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.
KJV

And you only quoted me as
And you say:

So, since I said:"...Please do not take this as confrontational. It is a very valid point to consider, and I would say the same challenge applies to me as well. ...."; in the same paragraph, I am obviously not making a personal attack, since I said the same would apply to me as well.

I do not consider such personal comments as appropriate in any case if our focus is to be studying God's word. In the context of our discussion, you have been telling me that you have the Holy Spirit and do understand and I don't understand, so how was I to take it any other way.

the best approach? let's not focus on the person, but let's get into the Bibel and see what it has to say.

Now, can you show me where in the Bible it endorses the doctrine that men can become God or God?

 

[fatboys]

God did not say that they became like him, he said that they now knew good and evil. Before they sinned, they knew only good, because they did notknow sin.

FB: Tell me Tom, if they only ever knew Good, would the ever know evil? Also tell me how they would know what they knew was Good, was Good? Without knowing the opposite, how would they even know the Good? Example, if a person was born, and was born in pain from day one. Would he know what no pain was? Would he know what pain was. To know Joy, one must know what no joy is. To know happy, one must know unhappy. Now explain to me, how a person could sin without knowledge or comprehension of the consequences of a law. God said do not eat of that fruit, and then gave them a reason why they should not. Since the reason was death, and since they had nothing to compare with, could Adam and Eve truely understood what death was. Could you explain to a small child what death was? Do you think they really understood. Do you remember the first time you really understood that Grandpa was not going to come back to life. It takes time to compare events to understand a principle. What events did Adam and Eve have to compare with to understand any of the laws given to them? When they partook of the fruit, did they understand fully the consequences of their actions? They were innocent. Therefore they were still disobedient which is transgression, but did not sin. The did not know the difference between Good and Evil. Notice also that the Tree was called the Tree of Good and Evil. It was not just called the tree of evil. They had to partake to know what and understand what Good was.

After they sinned, they now experienced evil. Prior to that God knew good and evil but Adam and Eve only knew good.

FB: Prior to that, Adam and Eve did not know Good. They had nothing to compare that what they had was Good.

Where here does this address deification of man> It is quite the opposite, it is man acceptinga lie of Satan, who offered deification only to have Adam and Eve fall into sin and condemnation, and fall out of their relationship with God.

FB: Eve partook the fruit first. Adam partook to remain with Eve. When they partook their eyes were opened. That is when the begin to recongize the difference between Good and Evil. How could Satan have tempted them was being Gods when they did not understand what a God was? Satan tempted them that they would have knowledge. See you are putting the cart before the horse. You have to agree that Adam could not have understood what being God was since they had no knowledge of Good and Evil, and God said that after they had eaten they had become as one of them.

 

[fatboys]

That sounds fair to me. Show me that you understand the Bible. Prove it. Give us your clear understanding of this passage.

ויפתח יהוה את-פי האתון​

​

What I think MF is asking is that you want us to prove everything, and you can say or interpret the scriptures the way you want, but we are wrong when we interpret it the way we want. He wants to know how you know your interpretation is correct and not his. How do you know that the word of God is not just a book that is made up? You certainly believe the Book of Mormon to be such a book. Prove that the Bible is the word of God.

 

[fatboys]

14 If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

FB: This is pretty clear to me that those who work for the wrong things will be burned, but those who "WORK" for God, will have a foundation that will endure.

Grace: That isn't what it says, it says that if your earthly work to spread God's messege endures, you will have eartly reward but if your work is burned, you many not have eartly reward but are still saved. The whole passages I posted are talking about they are one in spreading the word of the Lord while on this earth. It also clearly says that those who don't have reward in this are still saved so your argument about the works and salvation being both a requirement are not valid.

FB: Then you just shot yourself in the foot. You are saying that a person's work that is founded on the world will still be saved. That it does not need to be founded on Christ to be saved. Wheww, Thanks, I am saved for sure.

14 If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

 

[Toms777]

FB: Tell me Tom, if they only ever knew Good, would the ever know evil? Also tell me how they would know what they knew was Good, was Good? Without knowing the opposite, how would they even know the Good?

The question more appropriately is, why would one want sin to enter the world? What is the value in knowing evil and experiencing sin?

Are you suggesting that sin (rebellion against God) was a desirable thing?

 

[fatboys]

The question more appropriately is, why would one want sin to enter the world? What is the value in knowing evil and experiencing sin?

Are you suggesting that sin (rebellion against God) was a desirable thing?

FB: To know Good, you must know the opposite, evil. Do you think that before God created, when you believe there was no evil, that first time that God was exposed to evil was when he created Satan? If this is so, how would God know what was Good or Evil? Our purpose in the eternal scheme is to learn through our experiences. That includes sin and disobedience. God knew this and knew that a saviour would have to be needed before the foundations of the earth. Because God's intent was for us to experience the opposites. This would mean that we would have to go through mortality. Mortality would mean that we would not only be exposed to sin, but sin ourselves. This is the reason that we have laws to obey, to help us return to God. See by your belief, that Adam and Eve surprised God when they ate the fruit, means that God is not all knowing. I have heard others say that God knew that Adam and Eve would eat, because he gave them their freedom to choose. If this was the case then God either had intended that they eat the fruit, or God was bound by some unforseen law which would not permitt him to change the result. Since God knows all, then he could have created a Adam and Eve that would choose to follow his will. That did not happen. So I believe that God intended things to go the way they went, and he remains the perfect all knowing and powerful God I believe him to be.

 

[Theway]

FB: To know Good, you must know the opposite, evil. Do you think that before God created, when you believe there was no evil, that first time that God was exposed to evil was when he created Satan? If this is so, how would God know what was Good or Evil? Our purpose in the eternal scheme is to learn through our experiences. That includes sin and disobedience. God knew this and knew that a saviour would have to be needed before the foundations of the earth. Because God's intent was for us to experience the opposites. This would mean that we would have to go through mortality. Mortality would mean that we would not only be exposed to sin, but sin ourselves. This is the reason that we have laws to obey, to help us return to God. See by your belief, that Adam and Eve surprised God when they ate the fruit, means that God is not all knowing. I have heard others say that God knew that Adam and Eve would eat, because he gave them their freedom to choose. If this was the case then God either had intended that they eat the fruit, or God was bound by some unforseen law which would not permitt him to change the result. Since God knows all, then he could have created a Adam and Eve that would choose to follow his will. That did not happen. So I believe that God intended things to go the way they went, and he remains the perfect all knowing and powerful God I believe him to be.

I would agree except for the part where God "intended that they eat the fruit"
IMO It would be safe to say that God "knew" they would and that it would be the only way for them to progress.
They chose to pertake of the fruit therefore they could not come back and say God "intended" for us to sin.
God wanted for all of us to come to earth and live a perfect life because he wants only what is good for us, but yet we choose not to follow him.
Christ came to this earth and lived a perfect life experiencing all we had to without having to experience sin in order to know the difference between good and evil. This is how I see it.
It would be like with those of us who have children. There would come a time when we have taught them all they need to know to survive in the world, and keeping them at home and solving all there problems would stunt thier growth. We love our kids and do not want them to have to experience the evil that is in the world i.e. sin, pain, heartache and possible death yet we have to let them go. Knowing our kids better than they know themselves we have a good idea of the good and bad that is within them and how they might react to most situations. When we try to tell them they tell us they won't and that they will always choose what is right, but we know better. So we tell them if there is a problem just give us a call and we'll try to work it out together. Through thier experiences they learn and grow.
How much more is God knowing us perfectly, knew we would all sin save one, but in order for us to grow,God gave us a physical body. God wanting us to return yet not being able to tolerate any sin knew the need for a Savior.

 

[MormonFriend]

Hmm....look at your original comemnts - it was you who did that.

I looked back. To which original comments are you referring? Please tell me, because if I did that, I want to apologize and make the necessary corrections.

I do not consider such personal comments as appropriate in any case if our focus is to be studying God's word. In the context of our discussion, you have been telling me that you have the Holy Spirit and do understand and I don't understand, so how was I to take it any other way.

Another way you could take it is as a possibility. In no way, means, or context have I told you that I have the Spirit and understand, and you don't. The context of my contributions to this discussion is that if I understand correctly, then the understanding came to me by the Spirit, and the same would apply to you. Since we understand differently, we can't both be listening to the Spirit.

I have good reason to question and doubt your source of understanding, because you, claiming to be a saved Christian, understand things differently than many others who also claim to be saved Christians. Are all of you listening to the same Spirit? Impossible! (or at least I see it that way, and hence, a source of my doubts.)

the best approach? let's not focus on the person, but let's get into the Bibel and see what it has to say.

You cannot separate the person from what the Bible has to say. The Bible itself teaches how a person is to understand. Can you name them? If you do not know what the Bible teaches about how a person is to understand, then how can you claim to understand the Bible? It would be like rowing a boat without lifting the anchor.

The Bible also teaches that man's mind can be veiled from understanding, and that his heart can be "past feeling."

Why delve into deep doctrines if these primary priorities have not been addressed?