Political Crossfire Forums

cap'n queasy · Joined: 15 May 2004 Posts: 34968

John wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: mojo wrote: feederband wrote: mojo wrote: feederband wrote: mojo wrote: feederband wrote: psholtz wrote: feederband wrote: psholtz wrote: feederband wrote: No... I have no need for gossip.. Ooops I mean gospels
Then you mind explaining what exactly you're doing on a Christian forum?

Trying to find your god... I mean 2 billion people can't be wrong right...Or at least some real insight on why you believe the way you do.....
Like I said, the Gospels are a much better source for that kind of insight than anything I might be able to do or say.

The gospels will not lead me to your god....

Try actually reading them for what they are. The atheist must always be careful of reading too much into things if he is to protect his thinking.

Hmmm. So what are they Mr mojo?

The portrait of the life and death and Jesus Christ.

If you can't recognize the beauty and majesty of the gospels words then you won't be convinced by anything ANYONE says.

Your objections aren't even legitimate anymore. They come off as desperate attempts to satirically dismiss the faithful as fools.

There are enough fools in every group....In every group people are misled...IMO the gospels are not 100% correct...How correct are they? I don't know but if just 1 % was wrong it could change the out look of everything...

If 1% was wrong it would not change anything with the exception of Jesus Christ rising from the dead. But since that story is retold in all 4 gospels I doubt that be wrong.

There are 4 different stories of Jesus' life, death and ressurection. They are portraits of him. They are not all going to be completely accurate depictions of his story. But they do show a general and fairly accurate depiction of his life and death.

It doesn't bother you that even though some of them copied from another source (Q), they still got it wrong, and, of course, that they copied from another source? There is only one description of the resurrection and 3 copies with embellishing by each author.

What proof is there of "Q" other than the consistencies of the texts? Which in my opinion is proof of inspiration from the Holy Spirit. We have four versions that have slightly different angles for a reason. It’s a fulfillment of prophecy actually…but I don’t expect you to be on that level. A little surprised that enyon isn't though....no worries...he has time to grow.

In my opinion there was an original source document, written by Matthew in Hebrew.

This is the elusive Q that the scribes and scholars surmise about.

Matthew was a Roman tax collector, and civil servants of this type had to be skilled in tachygraphy, which was a form of ancient shorthand. If you notice the main difference you see in Matthew's account and the others is that Matthew provides verbatim accounts of the discourses that Y'shua gave.

Mark, who was an assistant to Peter, wrote Peter's account in Rome. Luke was an independent researcher who interviewed many of the people involved years later. He was likely enjoined by Paul to perform this service, as they were associates. These three gospels are know as the synoptic gospels and refer to Y'shua's Galilean ministry. John wrote his gospel later, as an account of Y'shua's Judean ministry.

BTW the idea that scribes during this time ascribed their work to to some great teacher is a fabrication by skeptical modern scholars of the school of German Higher Criticism (circa 1880's), there is absolutely no substantiation of this theory, as it pertains to the authentic Gospels. This concept is based on the fact that certain writers of the so-called "Gnostic gospels" used the names of figures from the scripture to add an air of authenticity to their fraudulent claims and this activity is also arbitrarily assigned to the writers of the authentic gospels by default. First of all, it this exact feature that would have precluded the inclusion of any such fraudulent writing into the scripture, as it precluded the inclusion of the "Gnostic gospels". These "scholars", whose main focus is to explain the supernatural events in terms palatable to the prevalent materialistic paradigm which does not accept the metaphysical, fail to account for this facet of these ancient religious writing in their surmises. No credible scribe would have done such a thing involving the transmission of vital information to future generations. And more recent documentary scholarship and archeology places the gospel of Matthew within less than a decade after the crucifixion. What it comes down to is there is no real evidence the gospels weren't written by whoever put their name on the gospel. This is merely a claim by people who are protecting their materialistic worldview. We call writing something and saying someone else wrote it fraud, and so did people who lived in the time of Y'shua, or the Nicene council.

The problem is about two hundred years after Christ's ministries many of these gnostic writings appeared and made the claim that it was these writings themselves that were authentic rather than the accepted gospels passed down to us, yet enough people still knew the truth of the matter to formalize the authentic gospels into their present form. Another problem is modern people assume that these "Gnostic gospels" must be somewhat similiar to the modern view of Christ's ministry, as both this view and the modern view reject Christ, but this couldn't be farther from the truth. I think most people would throw that idea out the window in a second if they actually bothered to take a look at what these writings that were rejected promoted.

You can be assured that the Gospels are authentic, and were written by the people whose names appear on them. Now whether or not you want to believe any supernatural claims made by these writers is strictly up to the individual. Personally, I believe them. And the more I study them, the more I believe in them. In fact, trying to disprove them led me to realize exactly what they are in the first place.

The Creator has contacted us, and this writing is the story of this contact. And a projection of further contact to come.

MJB · Joined: 14 Apr 2006 Posts: 594

Narvik wrote:
What I meant was why didn't he create us in heaven and let us live there forever, like he did to the angels.

We came from heaven. God is the Father of our spirits. We are his offspring.

Hebrews 12: 9
9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

Acts 17: 28-29
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.

Had we remained in heaven as spirits, our development would have ceased. It was necessary that we leave our heavenly home and come to earth, obtain a physical body, and experience life away from God's presence, as a time of learning and testing, rather like being sent away to school. This mortal life is only one brief part of our eternal existence and development as children of God. If we endure this experience well, we will be able to return to God's presence and receive an inheritance that would not have been possible otherwise.

Romans 8:16-17
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

cap'n queasy · Joined: 15 May 2004 Posts: 34968

Quote: We are his offspring.

IMHO that is an erroneous statement based on an extremely specious interpretation of these passages. Nowhere is it implied in those passages that we are God's literal offspring. That is not Christian theology, it is Mormon theology.

cap'n queasy · Joined: 15 May 2004 Posts: 34968

For example take a look at the passage Acts 17:28-29 in context, and you get a very different implication than that we are the literal offspring of God.

Paul actually is denouncing the very concept you profess this passage is meant to imply.

Quote: Acts 17:22 So Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, "Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects. 23 "For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, `TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.' Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you. 24 "The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; 25 nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; 26 and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, 27 that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, we also are His children.' 29 "Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man. 30 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, 31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."

32 Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some began to sneer, but others said, "We shall hear you again concerning this." 33 So Paul went out of their midst. 34 But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.

There is nothing that implies that we are God's offspring to be found there, rather it states that He made the first man and the rest are offsping oh this man's. And Paul is pointing out that some of the poets of the Areopagites said we are children of God and that we should not think that the divine nature is anything like that of mankind, and furthermore he tells us this idea was born in an age of ignorance.

A better explanation of the nature of our relationship to God is this.

Quote: Eph 1:5 -
He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,

We can be adopted as children of God through Y'shua HaMeshiach, according to the kind intention of His will. It is by the grace of God that we may be adopted as sons and daughters. We are not God's offspring who deserve an inheritence.

Also note what the passage in Acts 17 has to say concerning temples built by the hands of man, and the works of the hands of men.
Quote: "The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything

So building temples, and our own works of service don't seem to count for all that much when it concerns God.

MJB · Joined: 14 Apr 2006 Posts: 594

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: We are his offspring.

IMHO that is an erroneous statement based on an extremely specious interpretation of these passages. Nowhere is it implied in those passages that we are God's literal offspring. That is not Christian theology, it is Mormon theology.

Which IS Christian theology.

MJB · Joined: 14 Apr 2006 Posts: 594

cap'n queasy wrote: For example take a look at the passage Acts 17:28-29 in context, and you get a very different implication than that we are the literal offspring of God.

Paul actually is denouncing the very concept you profess this passage is meant to imply.

Quote: Acts 17:22 So Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, "Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects. 23 "For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, `TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.' Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you. 24 "The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; 25 nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; 26 and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, 27 that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, we also are His children.' 29 "Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man. 30 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, 31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."

32 Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some began to sneer, but others said, "We shall hear you again concerning this." 33 So Paul went out of their midst. 34 But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.

There is nothing that implies that we are God's offspring to be found there, rather it states that He made the first man and the rest are offsping oh this man's. And Paul is pointing out that some of the poets of the Areopagites said we are children of God and that we should not think that the divine nature is anything like that of mankind, and furthermore he tells us this idea was born in an age of ignorance.

No - there is nothing that implies it. It is explicitly stated.

Acts 17: 28-29
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.

Paul's sermon on the Unknown God, was to preach that he was a living God, not a pagan idol. That we, being the very offspring of God, should realize that he is not, "like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device."

Quote: A better explanation of the nature of our relationship to God is this.

Quote: Eph 1:5 -
He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,

We can be adopted as children of God through Y'shua HaMeshiach, according to the kind intention of His will. It is by the grace of God that we may be adopted as sons and daughters. We are not God's offspring who deserve an inheritence.

You are confusing being the spirit children of God, with becoming the adopted children of Christ. They are two different things. All mankind are the spirit offspring of God. Only those who accept the gospel become the adopted children of Christ through the gospel covenant.

Quote: Also note what the passage in Acts 17 has to say concerning temples built by the hands of man, and the works of the hands of men.
Quote: "The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything

So building temples, and our own works of service don't seem to count for all that much when it concerns God.

Nice try at dissing LDS temples here, but Paul was not speaking to Christians, nor was he speaking of Christian temple worship. He was preaching in a city that was, "wholly given to idolatry," with its many statues and monuments to any number of gods and goddesses, and where philosophers saw him as being, "...a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection."

Angelicus · Joined: 04 Apr 2006 Posts: 4652

MJB wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: We are his offspring.

IMHO that is an erroneous statement based on an extremely specious interpretation of these passages. Nowhere is it implied in those passages that we are God's literal offspring. That is not Christian theology, it is Mormon theology.

Which IS Christian theology.

I don't mean too offend you, I really don't. But the Bible is the scripture wich Christian theology is based upon.

Care to show me where the "Angel" Moroni is in the Bible?

How about Joseph Smith?

How about Nephi?

MJB · Joined: 14 Apr 2006 Posts: 594

Angelicus wrote: MJB wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: We are his offspring.

IMHO that is an erroneous statement based on an extremely specious interpretation of these passages. Nowhere is it implied in those passages that we are God's literal offspring. That is not Christian theology, it is Mormon theology.

Which IS Christian theology.

I don't mean too offend you, I really don't. But the Bible is the scripture wich Christian theology is based upon.

Care to show me where the "Angel" Moroni is in the Bible?

How about Joseph Smith?

How about Nephi?

I don't mean to offend you, I really don't. But if you really want to know what the Bible says about them, read the Book of Mormon. Here's the link: http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents
It's completely cross referenced to the Bible. If you really want to know what the Bible says about them, that is.

cap'n queasy · Joined: 15 May 2004 Posts: 34968

Quote: But if you really want to know what the Bible says about them, read the Book of Mormon.

All that will tell you is what the book of Mormon says about them.

cap'n queasy · Joined: 15 May 2004 Posts: 34968

Quote: No - there is nothing that implies it. It is explicitly stated.

Acts 17: 28-29
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.

You are leaving out a crucial portion of the context to make this passage appear as it endorses Mormon theology when it actually discredits it. .

This portion to be specific:
Quote: Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you.

Paul clearly states that Adam was made by God, and was not His offspring, and we are offspring of Adam, not God.

It is easy to see why Mormons adopt this belief structure, the weird thing is if you point it out in clear, precise terms what this dogma is you will find it is roundly denied for some reason.

God is not a person from another planet who became the "god" of this planet by following Mormon theology correctly. We are not His literal children. There is no reason to interpret these types of passages the way you do, unless this is an accurate summary of Mormon belief.

Why insist that we are God's literal offspring, unless you believe what I summarized in the above?

In many other passages Paul discuss our adoption as children of God, through Y'shua HaMeshiach. There is no need to adopt one's own offspring.

Quote: Paul's sermon on the Unknown God, was to preach that he was a living God, not a pagan idol. That we, being the very offspring of God, should realize that he is not, "like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device." The Aereopagites believed they were the offspring of this so-called "Unknown God".

Paul clearly named this belief as ignorance. The idea that you are offspring of God is turning God into a material being, who procreates.
YHWH is the Creator, not the procreator. He made Adam from dust. He did not join with a female and produce us as offspring.

Quote: You are confusing being the spirit children of God, with becoming the adopted children of Christ. They are two different things. All mankind are the spirit offspring of God. Only those who accept the gospel become the adopted children of Christ through the gospel covenant.

No, you are attempting interject non-Christian dogma into Christian doctrine. Mankind is the offspring of Adam, the first man, who was made by God. There is nothing about God procreating mentioned anywhere in the scriptures, distortions of certain passages aside.

The fact of the matter is that LDS, and Christianity are completely different belief structures, or there would be no argument of this magnitude to be had here. It goes far beyond, say the minor differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. These two traditions are too far from what Christ taught, in themselves, for something as wildly and bizarrely different as Mormon dogma to be accepted as Christianity.

Quote: Nice try at dissing LDS temples here, but Paul was not speaking to Christians, nor was he speaking of Christian temple worship. He was preaching in a city that was, "wholly given to idolatry," with its many statues and monuments to any number of gods and goddesses, and where philosophers saw him as being, "...a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection."

Paul said this:

Quote: "The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything

He didn't say God does not dwell in non-Christian temples, (or rather non-LDS temples, as Christians do not try to build temples at all) he said God does not dwell in temples made by hands.

I'm assuming that this is how Mormons build their temples.

eynon · Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 6:43 pm Post subject: Re: Heaven and man.

cap'n queasy wrote: John wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: mojo wrote: feederband wrote: mojo wrote: feederband wrote: mojo wrote: feederband wrote: psholtz wrote: feederband wrote: psholtz wrote: feederband wrote: No... I have no need for gossip.. Ooops I mean gospels
Then you mind explaining what exactly you're doing on a Christian forum?

Trying to find your god... I mean 2 billion people can't be wrong right...Or at least some real insight on why you believe the way you do.....
Like I said, the Gospels are a much better source for that kind of insight than anything I might be able to do or say.

The gospels will not lead me to your god....

Try actually reading them for what they are. The atheist must always be careful of reading too much into things if he is to protect his thinking.

Hmmm. So what are they Mr mojo?

The portrait of the life and death and Jesus Christ.

If you can't recognize the beauty and majesty of the gospels words then you won't be convinced by anything ANYONE says.

Your objections aren't even legitimate anymore. They come off as desperate attempts to satirically dismiss the faithful as fools.

There are enough fools in every group....In every group people are misled...IMO the gospels are not 100% correct...How correct are they? I don't know but if just 1 % was wrong it could change the out look of everything...

If 1% was wrong it would not change anything with the exception of Jesus Christ rising from the dead. But since that story is retold in all 4 gospels I doubt that be wrong.

There are 4 different stories of Jesus' life, death and ressurection. They are portraits of him. They are not all going to be completely accurate depictions of his story. But they do show a general and fairly accurate depiction of his life and death.

It doesn't bother you that even though some of them copied from another source (Q), they still got it wrong, and, of course, that they copied from another source? There is only one description of the resurrection and 3 copies with embellishing by each author.

What proof is there of "Q" other than the consistencies of the texts? Which in my opinion is proof of inspiration from the Holy Spirit. We have four versions that have slightly different angles for a reason. It’s a fulfillment of prophecy actually…but I don’t expect you to be on that level. A little surprised that enyon isn't though....no worries...he has time to grow.

In my opinion there was an original source document, written by Matthew in Hebrew.

This is the elusive Q that the scribes and scholars surmise about.

Matthew was a Roman tax collector, and civil servants of this type had to be skilled in tachygraphy, which was a form of ancient shorthand. If you notice the main difference you see in Matthew's account and the others is that Matthew provides verbatim accounts of the discourses that Y'shua gave.

Mark, who was an assistant to Peter, wrote Peter's account in Rome. Luke was an independent researcher who interviewed many of the people involved years later. He was likely enjoined by Paul to perform this service, as they were associates. These three gospels are know as the synoptic gospels and refer to Y'shua's Galilean ministry. John wrote his gospel later, as an account of Y'shua's Judean ministry.

BTW the idea that scribes during this time ascribed their work to to some great teacher is a fabrication by skeptical modern scholars of the school of German Higher Criticism (circa 1880's), there is absolutely no substantiation of this theory, as it pertains to the authentic Gospels. This concept is based on the fact that certain writers of the so-called "Gnostic gospels" used the names of figures from the scripture to add an air of authenticity to their fraudulent claims and this activity is also arbitrarily assigned to the writers of the authentic gospels by default. First of all, it this exact feature that would have precluded the inclusion of any such fraudulent writing into the scripture, as it precluded the inclusion of the "Gnostic gospels". These "scholars", whose main focus is to explain the supernatural events in terms palatable to the prevalent materialistic paradigm which does not accept the metaphysical, fail to account for this facet of these ancient religious writing in their surmises. No credible scribe would have done such a thing involving the transmission of vital information to future generations. And more recent documentary scholarship and archeology places the gospel of Matthew within less than a decade after the crucifixion. What it comes down to is there is no real evidence the gospels weren't written by whoever put their name on the gospel. This is merely a claim by people who are protecting their materialistic worldview. We call writing something and saying someone else wrote it fraud, and so did people who lived in the time of Y'shua, or the Nicene council.

The problem is about two hundred years after Christ's ministries many of these gnostic writings appeared and made the claim that it was these writings themselves that were authentic rather than the accepted gospels passed down to us, yet enough people still knew the truth of the matter to formalize the authentic gospels into their present form. Another problem is modern people assume that these "Gnostic gospels" must be somewhat similiar to the modern view of Christ's ministry, as both this view and the modern view reject Christ, but this couldn't be farther from the truth. I think most people would throw that idea out the window in a second if they actually bothered to take a look at what these writings that were rejected promoted.

You can be assured that the Gospels are authentic, and were written by the people whose names appear on them. Now whether or not you want to believe any supernatural claims made by these writers is strictly up to the individual. Personally, I believe them. And the more I study them, the more I believe in them. In fact, trying to disprove them led me to realize exactly what they are in the first place.

The Creator has contacted us, and this writing is the story of this contact. And a projection of further contact to come.

:clap: nice post.........really lays things out :)

MJB · Joined: 14 Apr 2006 Posts: 594

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: No - there is nothing that implies it. It is explicitly stated.

Acts 17: 28-29
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.

You are leaving out a crucial portion of the context to make this passage appear as it endorses Mormon theology when it actually discredits it. .

This portion to be specific:
Quote: Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you.

They worshipped in ignorance because they didn't know the true nature of God. Paul teaches them of the nature of God, by preaching that we are his offspring, so they can gain understanding that he is a living being, not some idol of stone.

Paul clearly states that Adam was made by God, and was not His offspring, and we are offspring of Adam, not God.

Adam's physical body was, indeed, created by God. We are, indeed, the offspring of Adam because we are his physical descendants. However, we are the offspring of God because he is the Father of our spirits (not our physical bodies).

Hebrews 12: 9
9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

It is easy to see why Mormons adopt this belief structure, the weird thing is if you point it out in clear, precise terms what this dogma is you will find it is roundly denied for some reason.

God is not a person from another planet who became the "god" of this planet by following Mormon theology correctly. We are not His literal children. There is no reason to interpret these types of passages the way you do, unless this is an accurate summary of Mormon belief.

In case you are unaware - anti-Mormon spin is not LDS theology.

Why insist that we are God's literal offspring, unless you believe what I summarized in the above?

Your distorted summary does not change what the scriptures state.

They say we are the offspring of God. They say God is the Father of our spirits. Jesus certainly knew and understood this, which is why he told Mary Magdalene when he appeared to her after his resurrection, "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." (John 20:17)

In many other passages Paul discuss our adoption as children of God, through Y'shua HaMeshiach. There is no need to adopt one's own offspring.

No there isn't. But then - we are not the offspring of Jesus either. We are the spirit offspring of God the Father. Again - we are adopted as the children of Christ through his gospel covenant.

Quote: Paul's sermon on the Unknown God, was to preach that he was a living God, not a pagan idol. That we, being the very offspring of God, should realize that he is not, "like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device." The Aereopagites believed they were the offspring of this so-called "Unknown God".

Paul clearly named this belief as ignorance. The idea that you are offspring of God is turning God into a material being, who procreates.

No - again - he was addressing their lack of understanding of the true nature of God.

YHWH is the Creator, not the procreator. He made Adam from dust. He did not join with a female and produce us as offspring.

Again - God the Father is the Father of our spirits. Not Jesus. Jesus, under the direction of his Father, created all things physically. Our spirits he did not create. Our spirits are the offspring of God the Father.

Quote: You are confusing being the spirit children of God, with becoming the adopted children of Christ. They are two different things. All mankind are the spirit offspring of God. Only those who accept the gospel become the adopted children of Christ through the gospel covenant.

No, you are attempting interject non-Christian dogma into Christian doctrine. Mankind is the offspring of Adam, the first man, who was made by God. There is nothing about God procreating mentioned anywhere in the scriptures, distortions of certain passages aside.

You can continue to ignore it as much as you want, but the scriptures clearly state that God is the Father of our spirits and we are his offspring. You can't get around it, and you are the one that must distort those statements in order to square then to your theology, just as you must do with much of scripture.

Incidentally - God created us in his image and likeness, both male and female. Or are you going to insist that females were unknown before the creation of Eve?

The fact of the matter is that LDS, and Christianity are completely different belief structures, or there would be no argument of this magnitude to be had here. It goes far beyond, say the minor differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. These two traditions are too far from what Christ taught, in themselves, for something as wildly and bizarrely different as Mormon dogma to be accepted as Christianity.

No - it is Christianity. It just encompasses more than you've been taught to believe. It's not at all different, but is a greater and more expanded understanding than you have.

Quote: Nice try at dissing LDS temples here, but Paul was not speaking to Christians, nor was he speaking of Christian temple worship. He was preaching in a city that was, "wholly given to idolatry," with its many statues and monuments to any number of gods and goddesses, and where philosophers saw him as being, "...a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection."

Paul said this:

Quote: "The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything

He didn't say God does not dwell in non-Christian temples, (or rather non-LDS temples, as Christians do not try to build temples at all) he said God does not dwell in temples made by hands.

Forgetting something again? Paul was preaching in Athens, a city, "wholly given to idolatry." A land of pagan temples and graven images of gods and goddesses.

I'm assuming that this is how Mormons build their temples.

Again - nice try at dissing LDS temples, but, as I've pointed out before, temple worship did not cease when the law of Moses was fulfilled, but was part of Christian life, and was an integral part of Christian worship, and one in which the apostles engaged in daily, the scriptures say.

Acts 5: 42
42 And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.

(It's no different now)

MJB · Joined: 14 Apr 2006 Posts: 594

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: But if you really want to know what the Bible says about them, read the Book of Mormon.

All that will tell you is what the book of Mormon says about them.

Miss the part about the Book of Mormon being completely cross referenced with the Bible? Might learn something that way.

Now. Why don't you be a good boy, and use some manners for a change. Be polite to the author of a thread, for once, and stop hijacking.

Surely you have some little tid-bits of wisdom you can impart on a topic, instead of going off on your anti-Mormon rants whenever I post, like some sort of little religious cyber stalker, which is not only rude but it's annoyingly immature.

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 22871

Quote: In my opinion there was an original source document, written by Matthew in Hebrew.

This is the elusive Q that the scribes and scholars surmise about.

Matthew was a Roman tax collector, and civil servants of this type had to be skilled in tachygraphy, which was a form of ancient shorthand. If you notice the main difference you see in Matthew's account and the others is that Matthew provides verbatim accounts of the discourses that Y'shua gave.

I guess its basically a matter of opinion, being that there isn't any proof of Q other than the similarities between the texts. I don’t guess there is anything wrong with believing that there was a source document….I guess you could argue that it would support an earlier account written down closer to the actual historical events.

I personally don’t put much weight in the theory because mere similarities in the text doesn’t strike me as being that strong of a proof…especially since we’re talking about the inspired word of God here. I also don’t see much evidence that Matthew would have written an original text in Hebrew, because even at this time in history, Hebrew was not the common language used..even among Hebrews. It had already become a language that was used for religious reason kinda like Latin and the Roman Catholic Church. I dunno…something as important as a source for most of the Gospels, wouldn’t you think that something would be preserved...yet there is nothing. I can’t help but think that there is nothing because there never was anything to begin with. But that’s just me…I’m not a big fan of speculation….it’s why I have problem with things like the theory of evolution…or the scholastic tradition that there were two Isaiahs. But hey…your theory sounds really good and intelligent…maybe it’s true. :-D

cap'n queasy · Joined: 15 May 2004 Posts: 34968

John wrote: Quote: In my opinion there was an original source document, written by Matthew in Hebrew.

This is the elusive Q that the scribes and scholars surmise about.

Matthew was a Roman tax collector, and civil servants of this type had to be skilled in tachygraphy, which was a form of ancient shorthand. If you notice the main difference you see in Matthew's account and the others is that Matthew provides verbatim accounts of the discourses that Y'shua gave.

I guess its basically a matter of opinion, being that there isn't any proof of Q other than the similarities between the texts. I don’t guess there is anything wrong with believing that there was a source document….I guess you could argue that it would support an earlier account written down closer to the actual historical events.

I personally don’t put much weight in the theory because mere similarities in the text doesn’t strike me as being that strong of a proof…especially since we’re talking about the inspired word of God here. I also don’t see much evidence that Matthew would have written an original text in Hebrew, because even at this time in history, Hebrew was not the common language used..even among Hebrews. It had already become a language that was used for religious reason kinda like Latin and the Roman Catholic Church. I dunno…something as important as a source for most of the Gospels, wouldn’t you think that something would be preserved...yet there is nothing. I can’t help but think that there is nothing because there never was anything to begin with. But that’s just me…I’m not a big fan of speculation….it’s why I have problem with things like the theory of evolution…or the scholastic tradition that there were two Isaiahs. But hey…your theory sounds really good and intelligent…maybe it’s true. :-D

Well, there's no empirical evidence either way, so it has to remain within the realm of speculation. But I think Matthew first wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, this is not the same thing as the Q theory by any means.

But the thing about spoken Hebrew in this time is this, Biblical Hebrew was a literary language at the time, much like Church Latin is now, but this language hadn't been spoken for hundreds of years, so this was to be expected.

This is not the same language as spoken Hebrew (proto-Mishnaic Hebrew) which was in use until around 135BC. This was the common language of Israel at the time of Christ.

Quote: Christian scholars have, at times, claimed that Hebrew was completely replaced by Aramaic during this period. However, Segal, Greenfield and Levine have demonstrated that this was not the case. Modern linguistic study, research on contemporary sources, the Bar Kochba letters in a popular spoken Hebrew all show that Hebrew was a spoken language of southern Palestine until at least 135 CE when, in the wake of the Bar Kochba rebellion, the Romans evicted or killed the Jewish population in the areas in which Hebrew was still spoken. At that point, Aramaic and Greek became virtually the only spoken languages of the whole of what is now Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel. An early form of Arabic was already spoken on the desert fringes of this area.

T he Roman suppression of the first Jewish revolt against Rome (67-70 CE), including the destruction of Jerusalem led to a social-cultural-religious collapse. This included the disappearance of the priestly aristocracy and Jewish groups such as the Sadducees and Essenes. The earliest Rabbinic literature dates from the period 70-200 CE and it is written in the spoken Hebrew of the time, called, after the most famous literary product of the time, Mishnaic Hebrew.

http://www.adath-shalom.ca/history_of_hebrew.htm#biblicalheb

The history of this language is pretty interesting and this website is a good overview of the subject.

eynon · Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 4:38 am Post subject:

cap'n queasy wrote: John wrote: Quote: In my opinion there was an original source document, written by Matthew in Hebrew.

This is the elusive Q that the scribes and scholars surmise about.

Matthew was a Roman tax collector, and civil servants of this type had to be skilled in tachygraphy, which was a form of ancient shorthand. If you notice the main difference you see in Matthew's account and the others is that Matthew provides verbatim accounts of the discourses that Y'shua gave.

I guess its basically a matter of opinion, being that there isn't any proof of Q other than the similarities between the texts. I don’t guess there is anything wrong with believing that there was a source document….I guess you could argue that it would support an earlier account written down closer to the actual historical events.

I personally don’t put much weight in the theory because mere similarities in the text doesn’t strike me as being that strong of a proof…especially since we’re talking about the inspired word of God here. I also don’t see much evidence that Matthew would have written an original text in Hebrew, because even at this time in history, Hebrew was not the common language used..even among Hebrews. It had already become a language that was used for religious reason kinda like Latin and the Roman Catholic Church. I dunno…something as important as a source for most of the Gospels, wouldn’t you think that something would be preserved...yet there is nothing. I can’t help but think that there is nothing because there never was anything to begin with. But that’s just me…I’m not a big fan of speculation….it’s why I have problem with things like the theory of evolution…or the scholastic tradition that there were two Isaiahs. But hey…your theory sounds really good and intelligent…maybe it’s true. :-D

Well, there's no empirical evidence either way, so it has to remain within the realm of speculation. But I think Matthew first wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, this is not the same thing as the Q theory by any means.

But the thing about spoken Hebrew in this time is this, Biblical Hebrew was a literary language at the time, much like Church Latin is now, but this language hadn't been spoken for hundreds of years, so this was to be expected.

This is not the same language as spoken Hebrew (proto-Mishnaic Hebrew) which was in use until around 135BC. This was the common language of Israel at the time of Christ.

Quote: Christian scholars have, at times, claimed that Hebrew was completely replaced by Aramaic during this period. However, Segal, Greenfield and Levine have demonstrated that this was not the case. Modern linguistic study, research on contemporary sources, the Bar Kochba letters in a popular spoken Hebrew all show that Hebrew was a spoken language of southern Palestine until at least 135 CE when, in the wake of the Bar Kochba rebellion, the Romans evicted or killed the Jewish population in the areas in which Hebrew was still spoken. At that point, Aramaic and Greek became virtually the only spoken languages of the whole of what is now Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel. An early form of Arabic was already spoken on the desert fringes of this area.

T he Roman suppression of the first Jewish revolt against Rome (67-70 CE), including the destruction of Jerusalem led to a social-cultural-religious collapse. This included the disappearance of the priestly aristocracy and Jewish groups such as the Sadducees and Essenes. The earliest Rabbinic literature dates from the period 70-200 CE and it is written in the spoken Hebrew of the time, called, after the most famous literary product of the time, Mishnaic Hebrew.

http://www.adath-shalom.ca/history_of_hebrew.htm#biblicalheb

The history of this language is pretty interesting and this website is a good overview of the subject.

if you don't mind me asking, why would he write in Hebrew and not Greek or Aramaic? as a Roman tax collector he would've been literate in Greek at least(Greek being the common tongue of the Eastern Roman provinces, even for official business), and Aramaic would have been Mathew's vernacular, so why Hebrew?

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 22871

Quote: if you don't mind me asking, why would he write in Hebrew and not Greek or Aramaic? as a Roman tax collector he would've been literate in Greek at least(Greek being the common tongue of the Eastern Roman provinces, even for official business), and Aramaic would have been Mathew's vernacular, so why Hebrew?

Because Hebrew is cool. :wink:

cap'n queasy · Joined: 15 May 2004 Posts: 34968

eynon wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: John wrote: Quote: In my opinion there was an original source document, written by Matthew in Hebrew.

This is the elusive Q that the scribes and scholars surmise about.

Matthew was a Roman tax collector, and civil servants of this type had to be skilled in tachygraphy, which was a form of ancient shorthand. If you notice the main difference you see in Matthew's account and the others is that Matthew provides verbatim accounts of the discourses that Y'shua gave.

I guess its basically a matter of opinion, being that there isn't any proof of Q other than the similarities between the texts. I don’t guess there is anything wrong with believing that there was a source document….I guess you could argue that it would support an earlier account written down closer to the actual historical events.

I personally don’t put much weight in the theory because mere similarities in the text doesn’t strike me as being that strong of a proof…especially since we’re talking about the inspired word of God here. I also don’t see much evidence that Matthew would have written an original text in Hebrew, because even at this time in history, Hebrew was not the common language used..even among Hebrews. It had already become a language that was used for religious reason kinda like Latin and the Roman Catholic Church. I dunno…something as important as a source for most of the Gospels, wouldn’t you think that something would be preserved...yet there is nothing. I can’t help but think that there is nothing because there never was anything to begin with. But that’s just me…I’m not a big fan of speculation….it’s why I have problem with things like the theory of evolution…or the scholastic tradition that there were two Isaiahs. But hey…your theory sounds really good and intelligent…maybe it’s true. :-D

Well, there's no empirical evidence either way, so it has to remain within the realm of speculation. But I think Matthew first wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, this is not the same thing as the Q theory by any means.

But the thing about spoken Hebrew in this time is this, Biblical Hebrew was a literary language at the time, much like Church Latin is now, but this language hadn't been spoken for hundreds of years, so this was to be expected.

This is not the same language as spoken Hebrew (proto-Mishnaic Hebrew) which was in use until around 135BC. This was the common language of Israel at the time of Christ.

Quote: Christian scholars have, at times, claimed that Hebrew was completely replaced by Aramaic during this period. However, Segal, Greenfield and Levine have demonstrated that this was not the case. Modern linguistic study, research on contemporary sources, the Bar Kochba letters in a popular spoken Hebrew all show that Hebrew was a spoken language of southern Palestine until at least 135 CE when, in the wake of the Bar Kochba rebellion, the Romans evicted or killed the Jewish population in the areas in which Hebrew was still spoken. At that point, Aramaic and Greek became virtually the only spoken languages of the whole of what is now Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel. An early form of Arabic was already spoken on the desert fringes of this area.

T he Roman suppression of the first Jewish revolt against Rome (67-70 CE), including the destruction of Jerusalem led to a social-cultural-religious collapse. This included the disappearance of the priestly aristocracy and Jewish groups such as the Sadducees and Essenes. The earliest Rabbinic literature dates from the period 70-200 CE and it is written in the spoken Hebrew of the time, called, after the most famous literary product of the time, Mishnaic Hebrew.

http://www.adath-shalom.ca/history_of_hebrew.htm#biblicalheb

The history of this language is pretty interesting and this website is a good overview of the subject.

if you don't mind me asking, why would he write in Hebrew and not Greek or Aramaic? as a Roman tax collector he would've been literate in Greek at least(Greek being the common tongue of the Eastern Roman provinces, even for official business), and Aramaic would have been Mathew's vernacular, so why Hebrew?

Proto-Mishnaic Hebrew was the common tongue of Israel. I wouldn't be surprised if Matthew wrote his tachygraphical notes of Y'shua's discourses in Greek, since this was a Greek technique, but then wrote his account in the common parlance of the people the testimony was directed at. Also, Aramaic and and Proto-Mishnaic Hebrew are practically the same language.

The ministry of Y'shua was directed specifically toward the Jewish people. He told his disciples specifically not to go to Gentile towns. Although Gentiles that encountered Him were saved as well, this is a side issue. This is an important point that most people are not aware of and which causes a lot of confusion in interpreting the Gospel.

He tasked Paul to minister to the Gentile world.