Another Mormon Question - Jesus as Savior?

[Phil12123]

**Zerinus,

You have presented many verses from the Bible, but not a single verse from the Book of Mormon. So, there is none, right?

All the verses from the Bible can easily be understood in context, which, if you want the explanations, I can give you. But first, give me that ONE verse from the Book of Mormon, please.

Peace**

 

[zerinus]

part 2

The early Christians, and all Christians since, believed in only ONE GOD.

Actually, they didn’t. I have already discussed this subject in this post, and in the remainder of the same thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1912854&postcount=58

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

You have presented many verses from the Bible, but not a single verse from the Book of Mormon. So, there is none, right?

Don’t dodge, and don’t try to change the subject. The subject of the present discussion is whether the Bible supports the doctrine of the plurality of gods or not; and I am showing you how that it does. The Book of Mornon has nothing to do with that.

All the verses from the Bible can easily be understood in context, which, if you want the explanations, I can give you.

Yea, you said it, and I believed it!—like your explanations for the crazy doctrine of the Trinity I guess.

But first, give me that ONE verse from the Book of Mormon, please.

See above.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

**I don’t understand why you have a problem with verses like that. You are not a JW or an Arian who believes Jesus is a creature, so what’s the problem? In any event, if you look at the context of each verse, and how they may otherwise be rendered, you will have your answer.

Col. 1:15 may also be rendered thusly, in context with verse 16:

New King James
Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation**.
Colossians 1:16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.

---

Verse 15 cannot be read apart from verse 16, which explains verse 15. Christ is not called the “first-created”; there is another Greek word for that. Christ is the “firstborn” i.e., the one having preeminence over the others.

You are trying to wrest the scriptures, and force a meaning onto it which read into it by any stretch of the imagination. Firstborn means exactly what it says, the first to be “born” or “come into existence” or “come into being.” The context of other scriptures, including the rest of the Colossians, makes that clear:

Colossians 1:

18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Hebrews 1:

6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

Revelation 1:

5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

In these verses the “firstborn from the dead” and “firstbegotten of the dead” simply means the first person to be resurrected—and He brings about the resurrection of the rest of the dead. Similarly, “firstborn of every creature” simply means that He is the first to be created—Who then became the agent in the hand of the Father to create all other things, as thought in verse 16, and of course elsewhere in the scriptures (e.g. John 1:3; Ephesians 3:9).

. . . Now, verse 16 says He created everything, but if He Himself was created, then He created Himself, which is absurd. He didn’t. He has always existed. He is Eternal.

Nonsense! Whom are you trying to fool? All scriptures testify that Jesus is the Firstbegotten of the Father; and that He then became the agent in the hand of the Father to create all other things. It doesn’t mean that He created Himself!

– Living Bible
Colossians 1:15 Christ is the exact likeness of the unseen God. He existed before God made anything at all, and, in fact,
Colossians 1:16 Christ himself is the Creator who made everything in heaven and earth, the things we can see and the things we can’t; the spirit world with its kings and kingdoms, its rulers and authorities; all were made by Christ for his own use and glory

– Simple English
Colossians 1:15 Christ is the image of God who cannot be seen. Christ is superior to everything that was made
Colossians 1:16 because, in Christ, everything was created: everything in the heavenly world and everything on earth, things that can be seen and things which cannot be seen–thrones, lords, rulers, and powers. Everything was created through Christ and for Christ.

We don’t consider these translations to be as accurate as the KJV. A peculiarity of the KJV is that it is an extremely literal translation—meaning that it renders the words exactly as they are, without attempting at any “private interpretations”. Thus the KJV renders the original exactly as it is, thus allowing the reader to make his own judgement about how it should be understood. These other more modern translations effectively put the translators’ own slant on the text, thus giving the reader a twisted view of the original text. That is why the LDS Church has adopted the KJV as its official translation of the Bible.

Your exegesis of Revelation is equally twisted and faulty, and no further comment is required.

zerinus

 

[Phil12123]

Don’t dodge, and don’t try to change the subject. The subject of the present discussion is whether the Bible supports the doctrine of the plurality of gods or not; and I am showing you how that it does. The Book of Mornon has nothing to do with that.

**So, if the Book of Mormon has nothing to do with “that,” can we conclude that the Book of Mormon does NOT support the plurality of gods?

In any event, this “present discussion” started after I asked for ONE verse from the Book of Mormon that teaches a plurality of gods and you ignored my request. So, let’s put everything on hold until you complete that assignment. Produce, zerinus!

Or perhaps if the Bible supports the doctrine of the plurality of gods, as you claim, but the Book of Mormon does NOT, we can conclude that the Book of Mormon is false, or produced by an “Apostate Christian” to-wit, Joseph Smith, Jr.**

 

[zerinus]

**So, if the Book of Mormon has nothing to do with “that,” can we conclude that the Book of Mormon does NOT support the plurality of gods?

In any event, this “present discussion” started after** I asked for ONE verse from the Book of Mormon that teaches a plurality of gods and you ignored my request. So, let’s put everything on hold until you complete that assignment. Produce, zerinus!

Or perhaps if the Bible supports the doctrine of the plurality of gods, as you claim, but the Book of Mormon does NOT, we can conclude that the Book of Mormon is false, or produced by an “Apostate Christian” to-wit, Joseph Smith, Jr.

I take this as a tacit acknowledgment on your part that the Bible does indeed teach the plurality of gods and the deification of man; and that the early Christians did in fact believe in multiple gods and that men can become gods. You just don’t have the courage to admit it, so you would rather create a diversion to cover it up rather than admit the truth. I am afraid that will not do. Once you have acknowledged that fact, and that I have been right about all of biblical interpretations thus far, I will address your questions about the Book of Mormon.

zerinus

 

[Allweather]

the Bible does indeed teach the plurality of gods and the deification of man; and that the early Christians did in fact believe in multiple gods and that men can become gods.zerinus

The Bible is sometimes “misinterpreted” in order to support heterodox theories about the nature of God, such as those proposed by various Mormons.

The Catholic Church is THE authoritative teacher of doctrine. Its interpretations of Scripture are authoritative and reliable. Plurality of gods is a Mormon regurgitation of heresy from earlier times that had already been itemized and condemned long before Joseph Smith, Jr wandered into the woods in the spring of 1820.

So-called “deification of man” (in the sense that Mormons take it) is another Mormon misinterpretation of sacred Scripture. Such misinterpretations flow from deliberate rejection of authoritative teaching.

To say that the Bible “teaches” anything is to assume that the Bible can have only one possible interpretation. Certainly, in many cases the meanings are clear, but in most, they can be wrenched and made to mean just about anything a bumpkin in the woods wants them to mean. Many bumpkins have created many sects and cults according to the various oddball interpretations they’ve hurled forth.

Joseph Smith, Jr is only one among many.

 

[Allweather]

A peculiarity of the KJV is that it is an extremely literal translation—meaning that it renders the words exactly as they are, without attempting at any “private interpretations”. Thus the KJV renders the original exactly as it is, thus allowing the reader to make his own judgement about how it should be understood.

And there you have the kernel of the problem. The reader “makes his own judgement about how it should be interpreted.”

This is how the Mormons have fallen out of the boat. Wrong interpretations, leading to wrong doctrines.

And not just the Mormons. There are many other sects and cults that’ve followed the same error-making process of misinterpretation of Scripture.

These other more modern translations effectively put the translators’ own slant on the text, thus giving the reader a twisted view of the original text. That is why the LDS Church has adopted the KJV as its official translation of the Bible.

The KJV is a very good Bible, no question. The real reason the Mormons use it alone is because Jr incorporated so much of it into his own writings. This is understandable, since there wasn’t another English version available to Jr. But to assert the superiority of the KJV over others, on grounds of accuracy, is really stretching it. But that’s another argument.

 

[dosdog]

I take this as a tacit acknowledgment on your part that the Bible does indeed teach the plurality of gods and the deification of man; and that the early Christians did in fact believe in multiple gods and that men can become gods. You just don’t have the courage to admit it, so you would rather create a diversion to cover it up rather than admit the truth. I am afraid that will not do. Once you have acknowledged that fact, and that I have been right about all of biblical interpretations thus far, I will address your questions about the Book of Mormon.

zerinus

Joseph Smith’s Changing Doctrine of Deity
VIEWED IN SCRIPTURAL ORDER

The Mormon scriptures are not progressive. Viewed chronologically, beginning from the most ancient period, they move from teaching the plurality of Gods, to monotheism, then back to the plurality of Gods.

Date
Book / Reference
Doctrine

2000 B.C. Book of Abraham 4:3-7 Plurality of Gods
1400 B.C. Book of Moses 1:6; 2:3-7 Monotheism
600 B.C. to A.D. 400 Book of Mormon
Alma 11:26-29 ModalisticMonotheism
A.D. 1830 Early (April 1830) Doctrine & Covenants 20:17, 19, 28 Monotheism
A.D. 1830 - Joseph Smith Translation Modalistic Monotheism
A.D. 1834-1835 Lectures on Faith, 5th Lecture Binatarian Monotheism, or Bitheism
A.D. 1839 Later (March 1839) Doctrine & Covenants 121:26, 28, 32 Possibility of Plurality of gods
A.D. 1839-1843 Doctrine & Covenants 131:17-18; 132:20, 37 Plurality of gods (but unlike in the Book of Abraham)
A.D. 1844 [King Follet Discourse*] Plurality of Gods
irr.org/mit/changod.html

 

[Paul_G]

Joseph Smith’s Changing Doctrine of Deity
VIEWED IN SCRIPTURAL ORDER

The Mormon scriptures are not progressive. Viewed chronologically, beginning from the most ancient period, they move from teaching the plurality of Gods, to monotheism, then back to the plurality of Gods.

Date
Book / Reference
Doctrine

2000 B.C. Book of Abraham 4:3-7 Plurality of Gods
1400 B.C. Book of Moses 1:6; 2:3-7 Monotheism
600 B.C. to A.D. 400 Book of Mormon
Alma 11:26-29 ModalisticMonotheism
A.D. 1830 Early (April 1830) Doctrine & Covenants 20:17, 19, 28 Monotheism
A.D. 1830 - Joseph Smith Translation Modalistic Monotheism
A.D. 1834-1835 Lectures on Faith, 5th Lecture Binatarian Monotheism, or Bitheism
A.D. 1839 Later (March 1839) Doctrine & Covenants 121:26, 28, 32 Possibility of Plurality of gods
A.D. 1839-1843 Doctrine & Covenants 131:17-18; 132:20, 37 Plurality of gods (but unlike in the Book of Abraham)
A.D. 1844 [King Follet Discourse*] Plurality of Gods
irr.org/mit/changod.html

It is no wonder that you would agree with the web page that you cut and pasted from if you use your own definitions to interpret LDS thought

Paul

 

[Allweather]

It is no wonder that you would agree with the web page that you cut and pasted from if you use your own definitions to interpret LDS thought

Paul

Paul,

As a person who wants to learn a lot about Mormonism, I’d be interested in how your interpretations of this material differ, and why.