LDS: Did God 'create' Jesus?

[ParkerD]

The books of Maccabees are not prophetic books, but rather belong to the historical books of the Old Testament, along with 1&2 Samuel, 1&2 Kings, 1&2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith and Esther. The Author is Judas Maccabeus. This book covers the period which many Protestant denominations refer to as the lost 400 years, when they claim that God was silent. The only reason these years are lost, for some, is because they are part of the Septuagint and are not included in the Protestant Bible. They cover the Maccabean revolt, a very important time in Jewish history.

As to its theological importance, the author teaches about the resurrection of the just on the last day, the intercession of saints in heaven for us here on earth and the power of the prayers and sacrifices of the living for the dead. And you thought Catholics invented this stuff.

This book was canonized along with the rest of the books in the Bible and was included until the Reformation when Luther and company, with no authority whatsoever, tossed the deuterocanonical books. Regardless, it remains the word of God just as much as any of the other books of the Bible.

Its a shame, since you wish to distance yourself from Protestantism, that you have accepted the Protestant version of the Bible. The Septuagint was the only version in existence in the time of Christ.

SteveVH,
Thanks for the synopsis. I appreciate it.

Joseph Smith did consider the Apocrypha as to whether it should be studied, and it was revealed to him that it could be studied but should not be considered “canonized”:

D & C 91:1 thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the Apocrypha—There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly;
2 There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men.

 

[ParkerD]

So evil is a necessity then and God provided it through Satan.

Not quite so. Satan provided evil through his own choices, but was cast to the earth by God so in that respect, God allowed evil to exist on earth. God allowed Satan to make his rebellious choices, and knew that if evil existed that humankind could make choices and that would ultimately be helpful to their progress and growth, given the fact that Christ was going to be provided as the Savior to redeem them from their condition of being both fallen and being impure because of wrong choices they would make, if they choose Christ as their Savior to redeem them.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, are you saying that one can “progress” without Christ? You mention Him here almost as an after-thought and your words imply that one can be saved without Him.
Your emphasis is on a person progressing, rather than being saved by Christ. Exactly where do you stand on this?

SteveVH,
Those are fair questions and make sense to ask.

The light of Christ (conscience) is given to every person born on earth. If they listen to and heed their conscience, they can choose good things even despite not knowing about Christ or knowing He is their Redeemer–they can choose to be loving, choose to honor their parents, choose to be honest, choose to be virtuous, and so forth. These choices are “progress” choices they certainly can and do make.

So I was not talking about being “saved by Christ”, which needs to be a conscious choice unless by little children before they have self-accountability; I was talking about “progress” during this earth life, through making conscious “good” choices as opposed to conscious “bad” choices.

As far as being “saved by Christ”, that is what all of mankind needs to do through making a conscious choice if they were old enough to be self-accountable, in order to be purified from their sins and the consequences of their wrong choices.

 

[Javl]

Parker:

I see that your response to my comments to you have been well answered and covered by others. I thank all.

Now in reading all your responses and comments I have come to undeniable conclusion that the God you “know, understand, and worship” is not the same that we do. If you know and understand His plan then you are 1) especially privy to it; 2) part of the divinity here on earth; or 3) know of another God that is NOT the God of the Judaeo-Christian Bible.

The God of the Bible has not, does not, and will not reveal any part of His divine plan. For if He did then we would know the future as He does and know who will enter eternal bliss with Him, etc. and we would all act accordingly since we would all know what our eternal destination is.

I’m sorry, my friend, but your explanation(s) and comment(s) do not follow what Jesus and the Apostles taught, nor what was understood and accepted in the primitive and early Church. Shalom.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[ParkerD]

Parker:

…
(1) The God of the Bible has not, does not, and will not reveal any part of His divine plan. …
I’m sorry, my friend, but your explanation(s) and comment(s) do not follow what Jesus and the Apostles taught, nor what was understood and accepted in the primitive and early Church. Shalom.

Shalom Aleichem

JAVL,
Thanks for the wish of peace, and I reciprocate that wish for you and your loved ones.

Your statement that I numbered (1) is a puzzler–since the Bible does reveal much of God’s divine plan of salvation.

If you find where in the Bible (besides in the Apocrypha) it was revealed and plainly understood that God created all things (including specifically, Satan) from nothing, then we can evaluate fairly the statement that a belief contrary to that teaching would be contrary to the Bible.

Peace and good health to you.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Not quite so. Satan provided evil through his own choices, but was cast to the earth by God so in that respect, God allowed evil to exist on earth. God allowed Satan to make his rebellious choices, and knew that if evil existed that humankind could make choices and that would ultimately be helpful to their progress and growth, given the fact that Christ was going to be provided as the Savior to redeem them from their condition of being both fallen and being impure because of wrong choices they would make, if they choose Christ as their Savior to redeem them.

So evil is good for us, the ole “what doesn’t kill us makes us stronger” thing.

 

[ParkerD]

So evil is good for us, the ole “what doesn’t kill us makes us stronger” thing.

No–being able to make choices is good for us. The ole “if there is nothing to choose between, then there is no choice.”

 

[RebeccaJ]

Catholic morality includes the premise that the end does not justify the means. LDS do not hold to this understanding of morality. They believe their god can and does command evil in order that good might come from it. The 10 commandments are more like guidelines, that can be revoked temporarily in order for God to achieve something “good”. It is how such practices as “lying for the Lord” are justified.

All ParkerD is trying to do is justify immoral/evil acts, and call them “divinely ordered”. He’d like the world to believe that God gave us free will in order that we can do evil. Now who would come up with such tricks?

 

[zaffiroborant]

No–being able to make choices is good for us. The ole “if there is nothing to choose between, then there is no choice.”

So evil is good for us.

 

[ParkerD]

Catholic morality includes the premise that the end does not justify the means…
All ParkerD is trying to do is justify immoral/evil acts, and call them “divinely ordered”. He’d like the world to believe that God gave us free will in order that we can do evil. Now who would come up with such tricks?

RJ,
I can’t think for you. You have the opportunity to think for yourself. You evidently accept a belief (based on your earlier response to me) that God created Satan knowing full well all that he was going to do, and all that those who would be falsely led by him were going to do. I believe that God does not create evil, He allows evil.

My difference in belief is knowing that God did not create Satan from nothing–that He allowed Satan’s choice of rebellion, and knew it would happen because of being omniscient, and didn’t scuttle him off to some corner of the universe, and that God’s plan included providing a Savior as the foundation stone of His plan of salvation–that Christ is the Rock of salvation, and was foreordained as the Rock of salvation.

As far as the notions you have about me, it is an easy thing to know whether such thoughts are “of God” or whether they are “of self-justification”. But one chooses for oneself, and one believes their own perceptions–that is what making these choices for ourselves in this life is all about. So, I’m not put off at all by such thoughts that are nothing about my reality, but are about the personal self-justification of a person making such comments as happens when someone’s beliefs are being challenged.

 

[ParkerD]

So evil is good for us.

Zaffiroborant,

I honestly don’t understand why it seems people aren’t able to distinguish between being able to choose among choices, and saying such a statement as the above. Having the opportunity to choose is good for us. If you want to choose evil, then that would not be good for you, nor would it be good for me. But having the opportunity to choose good over evil, is a good thing, a “growth” thing.

 

[RebeccaJ]

RJ,
I can’t think for you. You have the opportunity to think for yourself. You evidently accept a belief (based on your earlier response to me) that God created Satan knowing full well all that he was going to do, and all that those who would be falsely led by him were going to do. I believe that God does not create evil, He allows evil.

My difference in belief is knowing that God did not create Satan from nothing–that He allowed Satan’s choice of rebellion, and knew it would happen because of being omniscient, and didn’t scuttle him off to some corner of the universe, and that God’s plan included providing a Savior as the foundation stone of His plan of salvation–that Christ is the Rock of salvation, and was foreordained as the Rock of salvation.

As far as the notions you have about me, it is an easy thing to know whether such thoughts are “of God” or whether they are “of self-justification”. But one chooses for oneself, and one believes their own perceptions–that is what making these choices for ourselves in this life is all about. So, I’m not put off at all by such thoughts that are nothing about my reality, but are about the personal self-justification of a person making such comments as happens when someone’s beliefs are being challenged.

ParkerD, I only judge what you write, and you write a lot about how much God wants us to do evil. This is evil ParkerD. I can’t sit here and pretend that it isn’t.

We are children of the light and God does not want, or will, His children to walk in darkness.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,
Thanks for the synopsis. I appreciate it.

Joseph Smith did consider the Apocrypha as to whether it should be studied, and it was revealed to him that it could be studied but should not be considered “canonized”:

D & C 91:1 thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the Apocrypha—There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly;
2 There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men.

Now I would like you to take a look from a skeptic’s point of view. He could not have used the Catholic Bible in mid 19th century America because no one would have followed him. His demographic target was Protestants who held an enormous bias against Catholics during that time frame. Had he used the Catholic Bible, they would have run far and fast.
It is more than convenient that he chose the KJV, since that was the Bible de jour among Protestants. I doubt he even knew of another.

As to the purported words of God in D&C, are you trying to tell me that He actually used the word “Apocrypha” and said “it is mostly translated correctly”?

The word “Apocrypha” is a pejorative term, meaning spurious or of dubious authenticity. Isn’t it strange that the entire Jewish world, including Jesus himself, considered these books to be scripture, and then God comes along 1830 years later to inform Joseph Smith that they weren’t scripture at all?

As far as being translated correctly, what was he referring to? The Latin Vulgate, the Douay Rheims, the original Greek?

Sorry, this sounds very much like the words of men, not the words of God.

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD, I only judge what you write, and you write a lot about how much God wants us to do evil.
We are children of the light and God does not want, or will, His children to walk in darkness.

So let’s see, RJ. You have made a specific statement. You have the back-up for having made the statement, since the only thing you know about me is what I have typed and submitted on any of these threads.

Which of those statements says “God wants us to do evil”?

I assure you I have never said that, nor have I implied it in any way.

 

[ParkerD]

…
It is more than convenient that he chose the KJV, since that was the Bible de jour among Protestants. I doubt he even knew of another.

…
As far as being translated correctly, what was he referring to? The Latin Vulgate, the Douay Rheims, the original Greek?

Sorry, this sounds very much like the words of men, not the words of God.

SteveVH,
Although we are wandering off the topic of this thread, a brief aside for your information is that Joseph Smith said that the German translation of the Bible was preferred by him as the “more correct” as compared with the KJV.

As to your other question, I don’t know but I would assume something similar to the Douay Rheims as that would have been available and he didn’t know Latin or Greek.

Revelation from God is a communication that interacts with our minds and hearts using language familiar to us, usually, although lifting us to a higher level of thought than our own minds’ level of thought.

 

[RebeccaJ]

So let’s see, RJ. You have made a specific statement. You have the back-up for having made the statement, since the only thing you know about me is what I have typed and submitted on any of these threads.

Which of those statements says “God wants us to do evil”?

I assure you I have never said that, nor have I implied it in any way.

Yes ParkerD, the very nature of a internet forum dictates that we only know a person by what they type. You seem to be taking this rather harshly. Think of it instead of a person who cares, telling you that what you think you are saying is perhaps rooted in something other than truth?

You keep asserting, by some convoluted thought process you call “logic”, that Catholic belief requires that God created and willed evil. We have corrected you on this many times, not just in this thread.

Also, your thoughts regarding the Fall, reflect this thing you have going where you apparently believe God views evil as necessary. Which, is reflected again in what you conclude about Catholic doctrine, when clearly, you haven’t understood Catholic doctrine (and don’t seem willing to do so).

What else is there to conclude after so long ParkerD. Aren’t you tired yet, of this nonsense? Spinning your wheels in order to make Catholicism look like something it is not?

Ephesians 5:6-8, I think, is talking about you.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,
Although we are wandering off the topic of this thread, a brief aside for your information is that Joseph Smith said that the German translation of the Bible was preferred by him as the “more correct” as compared with the KJV.

As to your other question, I don’t know but I would assume something similar to the Douay Rheims as that would have been available and he didn’t know Latin or Greek.

Revelation from God is a communication that interacts with our minds and hearts using language familiar to us, usually, although lifting us to a higher level of thought than our own minds’ level of thought.

So when the words “Thus saith the Lord…” are used you are telling me that these are the words of Joseph Smith and not “the Lord”? And I wasn’t aware that JS knew German. How was the German translation preferred by him if he didn’t speak the language?

I agree that we are getting off track so if you will be kind enough to answer these questions I am happy to put it to rest.

 

[ParkerD]

RebeccaJ,

I asked you for a specific statement that supported your assertion about me. Your response was a generality. It’s OK–I expected as much. Have a good day, and I will, too.
Bye.

 

[ParkerD]

So when the words “Thus saith the Lord…” are used you are telling me that these are the words of Joseph Smith and not “the Lord”? And I wasn’t aware that JS knew German. How was the German translation preferred by him if he didn’t speak the language?

I agree that we are getting off track so if you will be kind enough to answer these questions I am happy to put it to rest.

SteveVH,
Joseph Smith studied the German language, and learned to read German in order to read the Luther translation of the Bible. Here is a brief account:

"Luther, following the Vulgate, inserted the phrase und sich erhangt (“and he hanged himself”) into his rendering of Acts 1:18. Joseph Smith, who was studying German and reading Luther’s German translation of the New Testament in the spring of 1844, stated on 7 April: “I have been readg. the Germ: I find it to be the most correct that I found & it corresponds the nearest to the revns. [revelations] that I have given the last 16 years.”

As far as the phrase, “Thus saith the Lord”, if the Holy Ghost gives an impression to a prophet then that is the Lord speaking to them, and whether they write “Thus saith the Lord” or not does not differentiate about where the inspiration is coming from, nor does it mean “this is more important than other inspiration from the Holy Ghost”. If the inspiration comes from the Holy Ghost, it is inspired and should be regarded as true.

 

[RebeccaJ]

RebeccaJ,

I asked you for a specific statement that supported your assertion about me. Your response was a generality. It’s OK–I expected as much. Have a good day, and I will, too.
Bye.

What the ? ParkerD. Your position for months is one of God wanted Adam and Eve to sin. Not only wanted it, willed it. You have this erroneous view that God gave two choices a) go against God or choice b) go against God. No? You’ve changed your mind?

Now, you want us to believe that Catholic doctrine must conclude that GOD, the creator of all things, also created evil. To get around this erroneous conclusion, which no Catholic holds, you assert that God did not create all things!

It is in everything you say. You can’t figure out evil and are trying to put something on us that isn’t ours.

Pick a post. Any one will do.