LDS restoration

[Horton]

Other verses refer to men as spirit. John 3:5, 6 state:

Jesus answered, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit .

Clearly in these verse born again men and women are plainly referred to as spirit - just like God is in John 4:24

These verses refer to baptism, not referring to men & women as spirit like God. In John 4:24 the Spirit reference is the Holy Spirit.

Again we see a Being of flesh and bone referred to as spirit. It’s only logical to conclude that the Father per John 4:24 has a body of flesh and bone also

John 4:24 "God is Spirit, and those who worship him must worship in Spirit and truth.”

How in the world is it logical to conclude God the Father has a body flesh & bone from this verse.

Also, 1 Corinthians 15:45 refers to the resurrected Christ as a life-giving spirit.

So, too, it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living being,” the last Adam a life-giving spirit .

Again, you cannot take this verse to mean God the Father has a body of flesh & blood. In reading the whole paragraph, it just does not reach that conclusion.

 

[RuthAnne]

on the last post, can you give us verifiable date when the Great and total apostasy of the Christian Church happened?

He can’t because it never happened. I’ve had lengthy discussions with my Mormon relatives about the great apostasy and without exception, every conversation ends with them painting themselves into a corner. The official position of the Mormon cult is that God withdrew the priesthood authority including the keys from the earth after the deaths of the apostles but they also believe that four of the apostles never died but remain in mortality on the earth and will do so until Jesus’s second return. So then they say stuff like, oh yeah … well there was never a time when the priesthood was not on the earth, thereby contradicting the first position. And the apostle John, a mortal, visited Joe and his side kick Ollie, in the woods as an angel, to give them boys the keys of the priesthood that he didn’t even have to give because it had been taken to him. And since when are mortals also angels? And did Moroni have the priesthood? Apparently not. Each layer you peel just reveals more lies and deceptions.

And then they throw out junk like infant baptism. Infants were apparently able to enter into covenants just a few days old via circumcision, but since they are infants, unable to be held accountable, they are too young to make baptismal covenants. Just more of the confusing, impossibly comprehensible gospel of Mormonism.

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

Again I never said that All always means all. But I said that in John 1:3 and col 1:16 all is meaning all. Prove me wrong. The language and context and wording proves it is meaning all.
John 1:3 “All thing came into being through Him and without Him not one thing has come into being that has come into being.” What does this leave out? The only way to deny this is to lie and say it is not meaning what it is meaning.
Col 1:16 literally lists everything. Nothing is left out. Again only way to deny this is to lie to ones self and try and say one word doesn’t mean what it’s saying, but the verses both list everything that have been made and say that Jesus made all of them. So, Jesus made Satan, therefore not a brother. And since Jesus made everything that has been made, He can’t have been created or else he’d have to have created Himself, therefore He is uncreated and that means He is God.

I like how you have ignored the rest of my arguments. You have said nothing about what St. Thomas Aquinas said. But that should be expected. Wouldn’t expect Mormonism to stand up to the Saint.

 

[Legend]

Seems as if they’re just giving the ‘official’ arguments they learn from their leaders. They just ignore what they can’t answer, and hope we won’t notice.

I wish they’d just think things out! It’s amazing that this religion has lasted as long as it has. Strange how there have been no serious arguments within the leadership, as 15 Men are called ‘prophets, seers, and revelators’. (Their words, not mine!)

 

[gazelam]

Prove me wrong… Col 1:16 literally lists everything. Nothing is left out.

Colossians 1:16 For in him were created all things in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible,
whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things were created through him and for him.

1. Did Christ create God the Father or the Holy Spirit which are in Heaven?
2. Was the creation referred to in this verse out of nothing or of preexisting matter? If preexisting matter, then again it’s not really ALL things

Regarding #2, Stanley L. Jaki, a Catholic priest of the Benedictine Order, stated:

The caution which is in order about taking the [Hebrew] verb bara in the sense of creation out of nothing is no less needed in reference to the [English] word creation. Nothing is more natural, and unadvised, at the same time, than to use the word as if it has always denoted creation out of nothing. In its basic etymological origin the word creation meant the purely natural process of growing or of making something to grow. This should be obvious by a mere recall of the [Latin] verb crescere. The crescent moon [derived from crescere] is not creating but merely growing. The expression ex nihilo or de nihilo had to be fastened, from around 200 A.D. on, by Christian theologians on the verb creare to convey unmistakably a process, strict creation, which only God can perform. Only through the long-standing use of those very Latin expressions, creare ex nihilo and creatio ex nihilo, could the English words to create and creation take on the meaning which excludes pre-existing matter. Stanley L. Jaki, Genesis 1 Through the Ages (Royal Oak, Mich.: Real View Books, 1998), 5-6.

I like how you have ignored the rest of my arguments.

There are forum character limits and I can’t do CAF 24/7 (as much as I’d like to).

You have said nothing about what St. Thomas Aquinas said. But that should be expected.

That should be expected because Aquinas had a vision toward the end of his life. After the vision he stopped writing saying “Such things have been revealed to me that all that I have written seems to me as so much straw. Now I await the end of my life.” If Aquinas doesn’t value his writing much I’m not sure why we should.

 

[RuthAnne]

They believe the apostle John will tarry upon the earth as a mortal until Jesus returns. They believe that Jesus also had twelve other apostles in America, three of whom chose the same blessing. All four of them remain among us.

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

Did Christ create God the Father or the Holy Spirit which are in Heaven?

They are obviously left out for the reason that it is speaking of created things and God is not created…but the Mormon position is that God the Father was created…

Was the creation referred to in this verse out of nothing or of preexisting matter? If preexisting matter, then again it’s not really ALL things

Your quote has nothing to do with Colossians. And of course its out of nothing, for if it was out of something then Christ wouldn’t have created all things in the heavens and on earth. Therefore, Christ created all things out of nothing or else there would be something created that would be not be created by the Son, implying St. Paul was wrong. Your argument has no basis again. And again your not taking into consideration John1:3 which you haven’t even attempted to answer.

There are forum character limits and I can’t do CAF 24/7 (as much as I’d like to).

pretty easy to respond to Aquinas on if God is a body…but maybe you just dont have an arguement against

That should be expected because Aquinas had a vision toward the end of his life. After the vision he stopped writing saying “ Such things have been revealed to me that all that I have written seems to me as so much straw. Now I await the end of my life. ” If Aquinas doesn’t value his writing much I’m not sure why we should.

What Aquinas said at the end of his earthly life doesn’t have a basis on the content of the writings. We should evaluate the arguments themselves not what an old Aquinas said after a supposed vision. Aquinas arguments still stand unanswered. And I will await a proper response to them

Again all your arguments fall apart Scripturally, logically, and Historically.

I hope you can find the correct answers to base your life on, not the false theories of a 19th century church.

 

[bassmansteiny]

What is the CES letter?

 

[Horton]

CES Letter - My Search for Answers to my Mormon Doubts | CES Letter

 

[bassmansteiny]

Thank you
123456789

 

[Horton]

Regarding #2, Stanley L. Jaki, a Catholic priest of the Benedictine Order, stated:

The caution which is in order about taking the [Hebrew] verb bara in the sense of creation out of nothing is no less needed in reference to the [English] word creation. Nothing is more natural, and unadvised, at the same time, than to use the word as if it has always denoted creation out of nothing. In its basic etymological origin the word creation meant the purely natural process of growing or of making something to grow. This should be obvious by a mere recall of the [Latin] verb crescere. The crescent moon [derived from crescere] is not creating but merely growing. The expression ex nihilo or de nihilo had to be fastened, from around 200 A.D. on, by Christian theologians on the verb creare to convey unmistakably a process, strict creation, which only God can perform. Only through the long-standing use of those very Latin expressions, creare ex nihilo and creatio ex nihilo, could the English words to create and creation take on the meaning which excludes pre-existing matter. Stanley L. Jaki, Genesis 1 Through the Ages (Royal Oak, Mich.: Real View Books, 1998), 5-6.

This has been explained to you already. Once again you take a part of text out of context and assign your own meaning to it.

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

It is the typical LDS manner of things, something I guess that we shouldn’t be to surprised at.

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

Very good article about how Mathematics of Eternity prove the universe began.The idea of eternal matter and universe have no mathematical, scientific, and most importantly for men of faith, biblical support. Here is the article: Mathematics of Eternity Prove The Universe Must Have Had A Beginning | MIT Technology Review

 

[Stephen168]

That should be expected because Aquinas had a vision toward the end of his life. After the vision he stopped writing saying “ Such things have been revealed to me that all that I have written seems to me as so much straw. Now I await the end of my life. ” If Aquinas doesn’t value his writing much I’m not sure why we should.

I see you’ve taken over for Tom Rosson

Your conclusion is not a fact. And that assumes he actually said what you claimed he did.

And you are avoiding refuting his reasoning.

 

[Stephen168]

I don’t see “materia non ex Deo” either. Is it in the Joseph Smith Translation? Is it in the Christian Bible anywhere?

Stanley L. Jaki, a Catholic priest of the Benedictine Order, stated

As I asked you before, show us where Christians have believed that God the Father created out of material he did not create.

Or show us where Christians have believed that God the Father was once a man; a created being.

It is clear that the Mormon Church is a new religion invented by Joseph Smith, and not a restoration of Christianity.

 

[Apache75]

Lucifer is an angel. Not a human. There is nothing to be reconciled. Jesus died for mans sins, not angels or fallen angels.

 

[Apache75]

So if the apostacy occurred after the death of the last apostle how was there an apostacy if the apostles never died? Contradiction on their part yes?

 

[gazelam]

They are obviously left out for the reason that it is speaking of created things and God is not created…

So you too agree that when scripture refers to “all things”, it doesn’t necessarily refer to every last single solitary thing. There are exceptions.

but the Mormon position is that God the Father was created…

If you mean in the “creation ex-nihilo” sense, this statement is incorrect. Latter-day Saints believe that The Father, the Son, The Holy Spirit, you, me, and Lucifer have always existed. (See D&C 93:29 “Man was also in the beginning with God…”

Your quote has nothing to do with Colossians. And of course its out of nothing, for if it was out of something then Christ wouldn’t have created all things in the heavens and on earth.

The quote has everything to do with Colossians. Jaki is making the point that when the verb “create” is used, the meaning during the first Century was understood to be creation out of previously existing material.

pretty easy to respond to Aquinas on if God is a body…but maybe you just dont have an arguement against

Fine. Have it your way.

Aquinas:

Thirdly, because God is the most noble of beings. Now it is impossible for a body to be the most noble of beings; for a body must be either animate or inanimate; and an animate body is manifestly nobler than any inanimate body. But an animate body is not animate precisely as body; otherwise all bodies would be animate. Therefore its animation depends upon some other thing, as our body depends for its animation on the soul. Hence that by which a body becomes animated must be nobler than the body. Therefore it is impossible that God should be a body."

1. Jesus is God.
2. The resurrected Jesus has a body. (Philippians 3:21 He will change our lowly body to conform with his glorified body by the power that enables him also to bring all things into subjection to himself.)

(So far, we have one God with a body.)

1. The Father is God.
2. Christ is the exact image of the Father (Hebrews 1:3 KJV Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person…) Therefore, the Father also has a body.

(Now, we have two Gods, each with a distinct body.)

Therefore, God has a body and Aquinas is refuted.

PS - Origen stated regarding the Gospel of John:

Origen:

If, therefore, we hear these words plainly, and do not take more pains about them, we are bound to say God is a body. (Robert E. Heine, trans., “Origen Commentary on the Gospel of John Books 13-32,” in The Fathers of the Church (Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1993), 89:93-100

 

[gazelam]

I see you’ve taken over for Tom Rosson

I could never hope to comment at the elevated levels of Tom’s comments.

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

So you too agree that when scripture refers to “all things”, it doesn’t necessarily refer to every last single solitary thing. There are exceptions.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) SeekerOfTruth7:

Yes, never said I didn’t agree, except I did day that John 1:3 and Col 1:16 are exceptions.

“ Man was also in the beginning with God… ”

Biblically incorrect. You STILL haven’t given any meaningful rebuttal to John 1:3 and Col. 1:16! These verse leave nothing out. All things that have been made were made by the Son. Therefore, since man was made, he was made by the Son. If the Son is made, then He would have had to make Himself, which is impossible, therefore, the Son was never made and is Eternal. And, you never refuted or gave any evidence biblically, scientifically, and logically on eternal matter. Science and mathematics disproves it, the Bible disproves it (Maccabees is clear, and you gave no rebuttal but a quote from a non-authoritative source, and trying to arguing the latin which was easily defeated). So i take it the Mormon position is to not respond and just assert more things that have no substance.

Jaki is making the point that when the verb “create” is used, the meaning during the first Century was understood to be creation out of previously existing material.

Again wrong. 2nd Maccabees clearly shows this. The Greek is clear, and the historical method of interpretation on it shows that 2 centuries before (at least) that rabbinical Jews believed creation out of nothing. Science demands this, mathematics demand this, Bible demands this, logic demands this. Again, disproved.
Cont’d