LDS: Jesus always God?

[theidler]

Again, I’ll post this…
*
“Quote:
Originally Posted by ParkerD View Post
theidler,
**
All the passages you quoted from are narrative passages.** One who is evaluating the “style” and evidence of style differences would look at the styles of speakers as they speak, rather than at a narration. The chapters I had suggested you look at in the earlier conversation about this, were about men who were speaking from their heart or were writing in an “emotion voice” from their heart, not giving a narration about history.”*​

I’m going to post what I wrote again in case Parker might have missed it:
“On closer inspection, however, the Book of Mormon turns to be entirely narrative. The whole book takes the form of a story told by narrators, who may insert previously written records or documents into their account to make particular points…”
-Meridian Magazine, source here

 

[theidler]

…still waiting for a response from Parker…

 

[pablope]

Pablope,

It doesn’t need to be explained.

 

[zaffiroborant]

10 But, notwithstanding the greatness of the task, I must do according to the strict commands of God, and tell you concerning your wickedness and abominations, in the presence of the pure in heart, and the broken heart, and under the glance of the piercing eye of the Almighty God.

One can use the search tool to look at all the uses in the Book of Mormon of this last above phrase, the “glance of the piercing eye of the Almighty God”.

That phrase appears only once in the Book of Mormon, and not at all in the Bible.

How about just “piercing eye”? Those words together are used only that one time, and not at all in the Bible.

The same “one time”, only in the Book of Mormon, result is found if one looks at the expression “daggers placed to pierce their souls”.

Again, the same “one time” result (and not at all in the Bible) is found if one looks at the expression “wound their delicate minds.”

And how many books are there where an author uses a descriptive phrase only once in the whole book? Other than the BoM not a one I suppose

 

[ParkerD]

Again, I’ll post this…
*
“Quote:
Originally Posted by ParkerD View Post
theidler,
**
All the passages you quoted from are narrative passages.*** One who is evaluating the “style” and evidence of style differences would look at the styles of speakers as they speak, rather than at a narration. The chapters I had suggested you look at in the earlier conversation about this, were about men who were speaking from their heart or were writing in an “emotion voice” from their heart, not giving a narration about history.”​

I’m going to post what I wrote again in case Parker might have missed it:
“On closer inspection, however, the Book of Mormon turns to be entirely narrative. The whole book takes the form of a story told by narrators, who may insert previously written records or documents into their account to make particular points…”
-Meridian Magazine, source here

theidler,

I don’t know if you read the entire article, but the author had a particular point to make in comparing “narrators” in the Bible with “narrators” in the Book of Mormon. His main point was that “narrators” in the Bible don’t pass along personal insights and perspectives and commentaries, whereas “narrators” in the Book of Mormon do all of those things, making it a more complex narrative.

His point was not that seeing a speech by King Benjamin is seeing a “narrative” that is not really a speech. Mormon was the compiler of the greater portion of the Book of Mormon, including of Mosiah. So Mormon could be considered the “narrator” of the parts that he compiled, but yet he took entire “speeches” and “epistles” and included them in the compilation he compiled.

So those speeches present the point of view and the language usage of the speaker, not the narrator–who was Mormon in that instance, presenting the speech given by King Benjamin to his people.

It’s no different than a modern historian providing a personal point of view and personal commentary and insights as he/she presents the history they are writing. They can jump from presenting an actual speech given by a president, for example, to his personal life and make observations about his thoughts and feelings or how he came to write the speech. The “narrator” is the historian, the “narration” is the book he writes, but the “speech” he presents in the narration is what the president himself said.

One would expect the “speech” such as Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, to show the personality of the speaker, not the personality of the compiler and historian writing about the speech. But yet if the historian gives personal commentary, then we learn about the personality of the historian by what he chooses to emphasize.

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD;8784135:

Pablope,

Is it because you do not have an explanation, no wiggle room?

Parker…think about it…but Isaiah did not use the word Christ, nor would he know in his lifetime what “Christ” is…Isiah’s audince would not know the word “Christ” either.

And neither would your Nephites…the word would be foreign to them…the word “Christ” would not be used till the NT, after the resurrection.

The Nephites would have done a lot of head scratching trying to decipher that word.

Isaiah also did not know that the name of the messiah would be Jesus. Otherwise, he would have written the name.

Christ is a greek word, not a hebrew word.

So, if they did not know that word…why would the angel use the word “Christ”…he would have used a hebrew word…like Emmaneul…unless the angel did not know what he was saying and was incompetent…and or the god who instructed the angel was also incompetent…which is preposterous. That is, unless the story is in error…or the inspiration of the author is not from God…for why would there be an error, right?

You are in another conundrum, Parker…explain it away…

A diversion tactic again, parker.

God is omniscient. God can tell angels things in advance of the world knowing about them.

 

[theidler]

theidler,

I don’t know if you read the entire article, but the author had a particular point to make in comparing “narrators” in the Bible with “narrators” in the Book of Mormon. His main point was that “narrators” in the Bible don’t pass along personal insights and perspectives and commentaries, whereas “narrators” in the Book of Mormon do all of those things, making it a more complex narrative.

His point was not that seeing a speech by King Benjamin is seeing a “narrative” that is not really a speech. Mormon was the compiler of the greater portion of the Book of Mormon, including of Mosiah. So Mormon could be considered the “narrator” of the parts that he compiled, but yet he took entire “speeches” and “epistles” and included them in the compilation he compiled.

So those speeches present the point of view and the language usage of the speaker, not the narrator–who was Mormon in that instance, presenting the speech given by King Benjamin to his people.

It’s no different than a modern historian providing a personal point of view and personal commentary and insights as he/she presents the history they are writing. They can jump from presenting an actual speech given by a president, for example, to his personal life and make observations about his thoughts and feelings or how he came to write the speech. The “narrator” is the historian, the “narration” is the book he writes, but the “speech” he presents in the narration is what the president himself said.

One would expect the “speech” such as Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, to show the personality of the speaker, not the personality of the compiler and historian writing about the speech. But yet if the historian gives personal commentary, then we learn about the personality of the historian by what he chooses to emphasize.

For pete’s sake…you truly are a resurrected Houdini. :juggle:

“How to escape? Through the soaring air, through pitchy crannies deep in the earth? Clatter of hooves and wheels like wind, or a plunging prow?”
-Euripides, Ion

 

[pablope]

pablope;8784226:

God is omniscient. God can tell angels things in advance of the world knowing about them.

Another diversion tactic, parker.

We are talking about the receivers of the message, Parker…the Nephites. Looks like an inept angel did not know who were to receive the message…that they did not know any greek word.

That is unless God also transported a greek translator for them.

Again, it speaks of an incompetent angel and an incompetent god…not knowing that those who would be receiving the message would not have encountered any greeks yet…and the greek word, that would not be used till after the resurrection.

Parker…I do hope you realize what defending an untruth, and foistering it, entails…for as Rev 14 says…Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.”

“Yes,” says the Spirit, “they will rest from their labor,** for their deeds will follow them.” **.

 

[theidler]

Well, if I am learning anything from all of this, it’s patience. I suppose that’s a good thing.

Before I hit the sack, here’s a little reading for you Parker. I’ll be interested to hear your thoughts on it at some point.

calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

 

[Telstar]

Telstar,

It might help to learn patterns of Hebrew poetry.

As far as the word “father”, that word is used as a synonym for “creator” or “inventor” or “founder” or “benefactor” in common English usage–and that would mean it came from another language (Anglo Saxon) into English with one or more of those kinds of meanings.

I guess I might have to ask my old friend, Doc, that’s fluent in Hebrew, Greek and Latin. He was born a Jew, later became more agnostic, then a full blown atheist before finally converting to the Catholic Church. Maybe he can help me out.

 

[ParkerD]

I guess I might have to ask my old friend, Doc, that’s fluent in Hebrew, Greek and Latin. He was born a Jew, later became more agnostic, then a full blown atheist before finally converting to the Catholic Church. Maybe he can help me out.

Telstar,

Sounds good to me. You could take him the verse you questioned, and ask him about Hebrew poetry and the many passages in Isaiah that have double or triple words that are different but that have the same meaning and thus convey the message with a form of poetry.

 

[ParkerD]

God is omniscient. God can tell angels things in advance of the world knowing about them.

Pablope,

Here also is the Hebrew word found in Isaiah 61:1 for “has anointed”, since there is indeed such a word and just because our English language derives from multiple language sources does not mean people using other languages don’t or didn’t have a meaning that meant “anointed” or “has anointed”:

mā·šaḥ
מָשַׁח֩
has anointed

 

[Telstar]

Telstar,

Sounds good to me. You could take him the verse you questioned, and ask him about Hebrew poetry and the many passages in Isaiah that have double or triple words that are different but that have the same meaning and thus convey the message with a form of poetry.

OK, I showed the quote to my friend, but he says it’s hard to evaluate it correctly, since it’s supposed to be a translation from another language (that is completely unknown to anyone), and not translated directly from Hebrew. But, he did say this…"Hebrew word for father is Ab, or Av. The familiar is Avi. Abi= my father. The Aramaic form of course is Abba.

Yahweh is the word for creator. It gives exclusive reference to the one who never changes, has no form, exists outside of time and created everything. Elohim for God/ Lord is a term of relationship to other persons, and does not apply exclusively to God. This is akin to the English usage of Lord, eg. Jesus is Lord, but Churchill was First Sea Lord.

That line suffers from verb/subject placement problems. Jesus the Son of God, God who is the creator of all things, etc.

You could read that to mean that Jesus is the Son, but not the creator (the Father is), which would be consistent with the many heresies of LDS, in this case the non-divinity of Christ."

(all bold emphasis is mine) I must admit that I had to chuckle when he said the line has “verb/subject placement problems”, which has been something I’ve always had a problem understanding in “Mormon-speak”.

 

[pablope]

Pablope,

Here also is the Hebrew word found in Isaiah 61:1 for “has anointed”, since there is indeed such a word and just because our English language derives from multiple language sources does not mean people using other languages don’t or didn’t have a meaning that meant “anointed” or “has anointed”:

mā·šaḥ
מָשַׁח֩
has anointed

Parker…now you are diverting the conversation to English…:banghead:

You keep grasping for straws.

We are not talking about English use here…we are talking about the use of the word “Christ”…or Christus…a greek word…in the revelation or message of an angel to a group of people who have never encountered the greek word before…and won’t be used to refer to Jesus till after his resurrection.

So the only conclusion that can be drawn to it is…to me is…

a). either the angel is inept,

b). or the god who sent the angel is inept…

c). or the whole thing is a fraud…to begin with.

d). or the writer or translator is inept…thereby there is error in the BOM…the translator could not be trusted.

or E). Keep defending the lie and keep foistering it to hapless people…and you account for the consequences.

 

[pablope]

OK, I showed the quote to my friend, but he says it’s hard to evaluate it correctly, since it’s supposed to be a translation from another language (that is completely unknown to anyone), and not translated directly from Hebrew. But, he did say this…

"Hebrew word for father is Ab, or Av. The familiar is Avi. Abi= my father. The Aramaic form of course is Abba.

(all bold emphasis is mine) I must admit that I had to chuckle when he said the line has “verb/subject placement problems”.
​

From my post…285…option d…d). or the writer or translator is inept…thereby there is error in the BOM…the translator could not be trusted.

​

 

[Telstar]

From my post…285…option d…d). or the writer or translator is inept…thereby there is error in the BOM…the translator could not be trusted.

Maybe there was some dust on his peepstone.

 

[theidler]

It’s sad when the first thing I do when I come is check this thread - but it’s like watching a train wreck in slow-motion, with the conductor (in this case, ParkerD) crying out “Nope! It’s still workin’! We may not have any wheels, the caboose has fallen off, the engine’s dead, we’re outta coal, but by joe it’s still goin’!”

I guess I’ll have to wait a bit longer to see Parker’s comments on the article posted by Kathleen. But I’ll be here, haha.

 

[Pepband_Mom]

I need a good guffaw thanks, Gentlemen.

God spoke and by speaking His ETERNAL WORD, creation commenced.
Who is the WORD thereby the Father speaks the World into existence??? John 1:1 drafts off of Gen 1:1

(Is not Christos (Kah-REE-Stohs) Greek & Christus Latin, (Kah-Ree-Stuss) gents?)

In other posts, “GOD IS SPIRIT” “GOD IS LOVE” How can love exist as a solitude? Impossible, as you MUST have one to share your LOVE WITH in ETERNITY, action verb, right. How does God Love in ETERNITY if he is a solitude and knows of NO OTHER GODS but by His WORD he creates? Remember, he is omniscient, all-knowing, but ONE GOD (Shema, hear, O Israel, the Lord, thy God is ONE."

As He knows of “NO OTHER”, so no OTHER GODS around. PERIOD.

BIG 'ol hole for LDS to dig their way out of.

 

[theidler]

BIG 'ol hole for LDS to dig their way out of.

Watch - they will find a way.

 

[theidler]

Wow - this thread just died…it seems our LDS friends have beaten a hasty retreat, methinks. Maybe that article of Kathleen’s really got them thinking.