Mormon general authority teaches God the Father is resurrected being

[gazelam]

No. As in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott, pp. 79-80:

Thanks for reminding me that I need to get this book. It’s a well regarded handbook of Catholic belief, is it not?

a) The creation of the world out of nothing may be proved indirectly by the fact that the name Jahweh, and with it, necessary self-existence (Aseity), is attributed to God alone, while all other things in comparison with God are called nothing. From this follows the conclusion that everything outside God must attribute its existence to God.
…

This paragraph describes the problem in Orthodox Christian belief. It assumes that in the beginning God alone existed before time, space, matter, or anything else. This is something not found in the Bible. With that assumption Bible verses are then interpreted through that incorrect theological lens.

Let’s look at 2 Corinthians 4:18
While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen, are temporal; but the things which are not seen, are eternal.

The verse clearly states that there are unseen things that have existed forever. Yet Orthodox Christian belief forces a world view that the unseen things aren’t really eternal, contradicting that verse.

The verb bara (==create) can, indeed, also mean produce in the wider sense, but it is used almost exclusively of the Divine Activity; apart from Gn. 1, 27, it is never associated with the presence of a material, out of which God produces something. According to the usage of the biblical narrative in Gn. 1, 1, it expresses creation out of nothing only. Cf. Ps. 123, 8; 145, 6; 32, 9.

Quoting Jaki again:

It should seem significant that both the book of Ezechiel, certainly a post-Exilic product, and in the book of Joshua, a product quite possibly some seven hundred years older, one is confronted with the very human connotation of bara, a verb which exegetes love to raise to a quasi-divine pedestal. The significance remains intact whether one takes Genesis 1 for a Mosaic document, or for a post-Davidic composition, or even for a post-Exilic one, the latter being the most likely case. In all of these cases the taking of bara for an exclusively divine action, let alone for taking it for creation out of nothing, can only be done if one overlooks those three uses of it that span more than half a millenium. ( Stanley L. Jaki, Genesis 1 Through the Ages (Royal Oak, Mich.: Real View Books, 1998), 7.)

 

[gazelam]

This often cut and pasted quote has no bearing on the Christian believe of creation ex nihilo.

You are correct. Jaki’s analysis has no bearing on Orthodox Christian belief. Jaki’s analysis only shows that the accepted belief has no basis in the written word of God.

The Greek philosophers of the first century believed in the eternal existence of matter. This was not a Jewish idea and should not be assumed in the Old Testament. Some of these philosophers were

Peter Hayman records:
“Nearly all recent studies on the origin of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo have come to the conclusion that this doctrine is not native to Judaism, is nowhere attested in the Hebrew Bible, and probably arose in Christianity in the second century C. E. in the course of its fierce battle with Gnosticism.” (Peter Hayman, “Monotheism – A misused word in Jewish Studies?”)

 

[gazelam]

gazelam:

The doctrine that God’s creation is out of nothing is opposed to what the Bible teaches.

If so what are the first few verses of Gen 1: 1-3.

Genesis 1:1-3
In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth
2 and the earth was without form or shape, with darkness over the abyss and a mighty wind sweeping over the waters
3 Then God said: Let there be light, and there was light.

Verse 2 shows that something referred to a water was there when God commenced creation.

 

[GiftofMercy]

you might be interested to know that the Hebrew word for day also has the translation storm.

So what is your translation that shows water was already there before God began creating…

 

[Vico]

…

You wrote that: “The verse clearly states that there are unseen things that have existed forever.”

It states that there are things which are eternal which can be those with no beginning or end, kust no beginning, or just no end. Created objects can have no end. St. John Chrysostom wrote:
“But the things that are not seen are eternal.” Therefore the crowns are so also. And he said not the afflictions are so, but “the things that are seen;” all of them, whether punishment or rest, so that we should be neither puffed up by the one nor overborne [635] by the other. And therefore when speaking of the things to come, he said not the kingdom is eternal; but, “the things which are not seen are eternal,” whether they be a kingdom, or again punishment; so as both to alarm by the one and to encourage by the other.

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/chrysostom/2_corinthians/4.htm

 

[RebeccaJ]

Peter Hayman records:
“Nearly all recent studies on the origin of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo have come to the conclusion that this doctrine is not native to Judaism, is nowhere attested in the Hebrew Bible , and probably arose in Christianity in the second century C. E. in the course of its fierce battle with Gnosticism.” (Peter Hayman, “Monotheism – A misused word in Jewish Studies?”)

This fails to take into account the Maccabees quote that you are ignoring. It was written before Jesus was born.

Genesis 1:1-3
In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth
2 and the earth was without form or shape, with darkness over the abyss and a mighty wind sweeping over the waters
3 Then God said: Let there be light, and there was light.

Verse 2 shows that something referred to a water was there when God commenced creation.

It says, God created the heavens and the earth. What, you’re thinking when the earth was created the water, which now covers 71% of the earth’s surface, was not created at the same time? Doesn’t it say right there, there was nothing and then the earth was created? Why do you exclude water as being created when the earth was created? ie, timeline day by day is, water was created on day one.

 

[gazelam]

This fails to take into account the Maccabees quote that you are ignoring. It was written before Jesus was born.

Gerhard May said:
The best known text, constantly brought forward as the earliest evidence of the conceptual formulation of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, is 2 Maccabees 7:28. The need for caution in evaluating this is apparent from the context in which there is talk of creation “out of nothing.” There is here no theoretical disquisition on the nature of the creation process, but a parenthetic reference to God’s creative power: . . . A position on the problem of matter is clearly not to be expected in this context. The text implies no more than the conception that the world came into existence through the sovereign creative act of God, and that it previously was not there. (Gerhard May, Creatio ex Nihilo: The Doctrine of ‘Creation Out of Nothing’ in Early Christian Thought, trans. A. S. Worrall (Edinburgh: Clark, 1994); p. 6, 7)

James Hubler wrote in his dissertation:
Non-being [in 2 Maccabees] refers to the non-existence of the heavens and earth before God’s creative act. It does not express absolute non-existence, only the prior nonexistence of the heavens and earth. They were made to exist after not existing. (James N. Hubler, “Creatio ex Nihilo: Matter, Creation, and the Body in Classical and Christian Philosophy through Aquinas” (PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1995), 90)

I hope this helps…

 

[Wesrock]

There seems to be some confusion of Hellenistic influences. Both Plato and Aristotle argued for the eternity of matter. The Greek philosophers didn’t grasp the concept of creation ex nihilo. Plotinus, who was born well after early church writings attesting to the doctrine, was the developer of the neoplatonist system which also did not permit creation ex nihilo. This doctrine was something the early Church believed, because God as omnipotent, having absolute Providence, and the Creator simpliciter was something they received from the Apostles and the early Church.

 

[Stephen168]

There seems to be some confusion of Hellenistic influences. Both Plato and Aristotle argued for the eternity of matter. The Greek philosophers didn’t grasp the concept of creation ex nihilo . The neoplatonist system also did not permit this, and Plotinus was born well after early church writings attesting to the concept. This doctrine was something the early Church believed, because God as omnipotent, having absolute Providence, and the Creator simpliciter was something they received from the Apostles and the early Church.

If I understand you correctly, that was the point I was trying to make in my long winded post earlier in the thread.

I think it is also the belief of the authors often quoted by Mormons.

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

Gerhard May said:

James Hubler wrote

 

[RebeccaJ]

I hope this helps…

Yes, I know already that Mormons have a unique comprehension problem.

2 Maccabees 7:28 Revised Standard Version (RSV)

28 I beseech you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed.

(And also that the non de plume, Gazalem, has a proof texting problem.)

 

[gazelam]

Yes, I know already that Mormons have a unique comprehension problem.

Apparently you must also think that the Catholic scholars I cite must have the same unique comprehension problem as me.

2 Maccabees 7:28 Revised Standard Version (RSV)

28 I beseech you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed.

The Rev. N. Joseph Torchia, O. P., Ph. D. noted here:

But the contention that 2Mc 7:28 upholds creation ex nihilo is by no means a universally shared assumption among contemporary scholars. The dispute surrounds the formula ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐποίησεν ( the reading of Lucian 55 311 , Origen GCS 10.22.14 on Jn 1:17 , Latin M , Syriac ) and its unambiguous pronouncement of creation “from what does not exist.” The alternate reading (A V 106, Latin BP, Coptic) of οὐκ ἐξ ὄντων carries the connotation of “not from existent things”, a formula less explicit in its comitment to creation from absolutely nothing at all. In this respect, J. C. O’Neill suggests that the original reading was ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐποίησεν, stressing that the very need to highlight the “novelty” inherent in this act of making required a formula indicating an exceptional case (even as he concedes that the preposition ἐξ “implied some pre-existing stuff”). (Rev. N. Joseph Torchia, O. P., Ph. D., Creation and Contingency in Early Patristic Thought, Lexington Books: 2019, p 18, 19)

(And also that the non de plume, Gazalem, has a proof texting problem.)

It’s gazelam, btw

 

[Stephen168]

Apparently you must also think that the Catholic scholars I cite must have the same unique comprehension problem as me.

As I’ve pointed out in previous posts on this thread, it is you who does not understand the Catholic scholars you cut and paste.

 

[Apache75]

How many times do we have to tell you and other lds members that your lds books and their teachings don’t mean anything to us? They are not Scripture. Please read the Bible. It says nothing about your beliefs. Now I don’t doubt you believe in Jesus but the Bible is Gods Word.

 

[gazelam]

How many times do we have to tell you and other lds members that your lds books and their teachings don’t mean anything to us? They are not Scripture. Please read the Bible. It says nothing about your beliefs. Now I don’t doubt you believe in Jesus but the Bible is Gods Word.

Origen notes that in the early Church many held the Latter-day Saint belief:

Very many, indeed, are of the opinion that the matter of which things are made is itself signified in the language used by Moses in the beginning of Genesis: “In the beginning God made heaven and earth; and the earth was invisible and not arranged”: for by the words “invisible and not arranged” Moses would seem to mean nothing else than shapeless matter. (Origen, De Principiis 4:1:33, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, 4:379)

 

[Stephen168]

Origen notes that in the early Church many held the Latter-day Saint belief:

Very many, indeed, are of the opinion

Then Origen goes on to say why the “Very many” and Mormons are wrong.

As I’ve said before, Mormon apologists will quote a Church Father as if he believed the statement. When in fact, the Church Father is making a statement, and then will explain why the statement is false.

 

[Horton]

You keep making this claim but nothing you post actually supports that belief. You will need to find a new tactic, your cherry picking of quotes isn’t working anymore. As @Stephen168 points out, the rest of the paragraph disproves your claim.

 

[Apache75]

How does one hold your belief when your religion has only been around for 200 years? Its easy to use what is already written to try and fit your belief. I cant believe you don’t see this. Your church took other peoples opinions and made your own scriptures.

 

[nfinke]

Mormons have always had some very unique beliefs.

Don’t they also believe the garden of Eden was in a specific city in Missouri?

 

[historyfan81]

mormonisim is onw hell of wierd religion once you read it

 

[historyfan81]

scientology makes more sense a lot more