Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
|
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Re: Jesus was, is, and will always be God -- Mormon 210, 11:54:17 05/18/06 Thu
Lord,
>I must agree with this truth for the following reasons:
>
>John 1:3-All things came into being through Him, and
>apart from Him nothing came into being that has come
>into being.
>
>This says that Jesus created everything.
>Straightforward.
>This also says that nothing was created without him.
>That means heaven, the angels, mankind, earth,
>everything was created by him. In other words, we are
>his creations, not his brothers.
The Prophet of God in the latter days (Joseph Smith) re-translated John 1:1-34 and it clarifies God and Christ as two seperate individuals and that He (Christ was the Son) and was with God in the beginning. Your cohort "No name" stated that God was not subject to time, although I disagree with that notion, the applicaiton of beginning and ending is either out of sorts with his statement or there really is a beginning. If there is a beginning then there was either an accident and God came into being, or the context of time is that God existed as our God from the beginning. This further supports the eternal nature of God and His creators.
>Colossians 1:16- For by Him all things were created,
>both in the heavens and on earth, visible and
>invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or
>authorities--all things have been created through Him
>and for Him.
>This reiterates the previous point. If Jesus was a
>created being, he would not have been able to create
>all things. He would have merely created "all other
>things", which is not what the scriptures say.
I am a created being, yet I and my wife bore children. In that sense I am lord over my sons and daughters having been their creator, yet having been created myself. I am in the beginning, in me and in my wife were the beginnings of our family. Thus they (my children) were with me in the beginning and will be with me in the end.
>John 1:1-2-In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
>was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the
>beginning with God.
>
>This says that Jesus already existed at the beginning.
> He was neither born nor created at the beginning. He
>was already there.
See above.
>
>John 8:58-59 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered,
>"before Abraham was born, I am!" At this, they picked
>up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself,
>slipping away from the temple grounds.
>
>"I am" is how God revealed himself to Moses
>Exodus 3:14 " And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM:
>and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of
>Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you."
>
>Echoing that, Jesus claims himself that he is the
>eternal God. He does not say "before Abraham was, I
>was born", or "Before Abraham was, I was created". He
>says "I am", meaning that he was, is, and will always
>be God.
Again, He does not say He was not created, He says that He was before Abraham, which I fully agree with. In fact I stated in my first post that He was the firstborn in the spirit and the only born in the flesh.
>Taking the above into account, it appears that Jesus
>Christ is indeed God, has always been God, and will
>always be God. He is God by his own nature, not
>because he narrowly beat Lucifer in a "who has the
>better plan for the world" contest.
Barely? Christ won 2/3 of the hosts of heaven. That is 66% vs. 33%. Even if I read John 1:1-2 that was not re-translated by the Prophet Joseph Smith, it says that the same (meaning the Word or Christ) was with God. Secondly, there is a Father that Christ prays to, God's voice pronounces His Son's baptism while the Holy Ghost descends as a dove. My point here is that Christ Jehovah is our Lord yet He has a Lord in God the Father Elohim.
Mormon 210
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Re: The deity of Jesus Christ -- Mormon 210, 16:44:15 05/16/06 Tue
>Mormon I fail to see how time as we know it applies to
>God, a spiritual being who exists above and beyond
>TIME. How is it possible for Jesus to have been a
>"first born" to God when time has no relevance? God >
>Time. Jesus > Time. When you bring TIME into the
>equation, you pollute the idea and spirit of THE LORD.
>
>Why do you think God reveals HIMSELF as "I AM THAT I
>AM"? Because he is beyond time. Time does not apply.
> There is no such thing as before or after to THE
>LORD. TIME is a handicap of the physical, and of
>man... not of GOD JESUS.
>
>Anyway, you also did not provide any scriptural
>evidence for your reply.
Scriptual reference....sure, try reading Moses Chapter 6. Or D&C 77 and 78.
Time is no handicap to us or God, in fact it was utterly important to God as evidenced by his creative periods, or the use of time to measure His earthly manifestations (as described in the Seven Seals). An example would be that the Meridian (or middle) of time is when Christ came (4th Seal). Another example would be that God rested on the Seventh Day. So it is that we too must rest.
Infinite and eternal are not one in the same. God, measures time and applies it in His creations (as is the case with the rotation of the Earth, etc.). Time is orderly and God clearly is orderly.
Also, what difference does accepting a notion that "...as man is God once was..." that offends you? God said we are created in His image. My wife and I, through the natural creative power given to us by God, have created four children in our image. If my image is as God's then it makes sense that my purpose is as God's. I therefore should apply the good gifts in such a way as to glorify Him. If I as a Father did not desire my Son to do good as I do and that he can have all I have, then what aspect of God does that apply to.
Also, where in the scriptures does it say that God never had a beginning. In the Genesis creation it states that we are created in the image of God. God clearly uses the reference of Alpha and Omega (Rev 22:13 et al) which states He is the First meaning the beginning and the last meaning the end. In my home beginning means there was a start and ending means there will be an end.
Mormon 210
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
To Name Required -- Lord Veritas, 10:11:57 06/08/06 Thu
Name required, I would not recommend that you debate with Mormon 210, since he usually evades debate topics and distracts people with unapplicable arguments. Already, he has you debating whether or not Time is applicable to God, which has little pertinence to whether or not Jesus is God by nature, or by favoritism. Continue if you want, but do not be surprised if dealing with him is like dealing with someone who refuses to speak anything but German during an oral exam in which English is the subject.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Re: To Name Required -- Mormon 210, 13:52:29 06/12/06 Mon
>Name required, I would not recommend that you debate
>with Mormon 210, since he usually evades debate topics
>and distracts people with unapplicable arguments.
>Already, he has you debating whether or not Time is
>applicable to God, which has little pertinence to
>whether or not Jesus is God by nature, or by
>favoritism. Continue if you want, but do not be
>surprised if dealing with him is like dealing with
>someone who refuses to speak anything but German
>during an oral exam in which English is the subject.
Obviously Lord thinks the world revolves around him/her. If by claiming that I don't debate the topic at hand it would likely be that s/he can't transition his/her arguments and needs to be coddled to make sure we all come to his/her conclusions.
Bottom line is that I came here to discuss language and Lord wants me to study English. S/he can't get it out of his/her head that we've all built broader arguments in the discussion. As an example. Lord's original challenge was to provide evidence that proves Christ was married. I could'nt provide that (and duly noted that) yet I provided evidence that made Christ's marriage plausible he couldn't accept that. He simply wants us to bow down and coddle him and joinn his band of kool-aid drinkers. Sorry Lord-can't do.
Mormon 210
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Re: To Name Required -- * Name (required):, 15:02:06 06/30/06 Fri
Its funny seeing a Mormon refer to others as "kool-aid drinkers".
Oh the irony.
BTW, was in SLC a few weeks back and visited Temple square. Amazing architecture!
Equally amazing were the many nubile attractive skinny mormom girls who were around every corner trying to convert me. Apparently sex sells eh? Or maybe it's just my dirty mind lol. Nah... sex (or the suggestion thereof) is a great sales tool no doubt, and not above the Mormon's to try and use it apparently. I felt like I was at an industry trade show where they hired models to suck people into their booths.
The square really was cool though.
Hey, what is that story about the Mormons who led those settlers into the hills to be mercilessly slaughtered??? Heckler's Pass or something? I never knew about that one. Cool stuff.
Happy 4th!
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: To Name Required -- Mormon 210, 20:29:32 07/02/06 Sun
>Its funny seeing a Mormon refer to others as "kool-aid
>drinkers".
What in my religion requires blind faith?
>Equally amazing were the many nubile attractive skinny
>mormom girls who were around every corner trying to
>convert me. Apparently sex sells eh? Or maybe it's
>just my dirty mind lol. Nah... sex (or the suggestion
>thereof) is a great sales tool no doubt, and not above
>the Mormon's to try and use it apparently. I felt
>like I was at an industry trade show where they hired
>models to suck people into their booths.
Actually, the sister missionaries that serve in SLC Temple Square really have no interest in you sexually. The fact that young women would give up personal ambitions in order to teach the faith they believe in at a cost all to themselves for 18 months should remind us of the scripture that "...by their fruits ye shall know them". Rather you would prefer the to self indulge in humantistic diatribe. My guess is that you're simply just a pervert or have motives that are not in the same vain as those taught by the Savior Jesus Christ.
Mormon 210
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: To Name Required -- * Name (required):, 09:55:33 07/05/06 Wed
>>Its funny seeing a Mormon refer to others as "kool-aid
>>drinkers".
>
>What in my religion requires blind faith?
Where do i start? you are a funny man!
>>Equally amazing were the many nubile attractive skinny
>>mormom girls who were around every corner trying to
>>convert me. Apparently sex sells eh? Or maybe it's
>>just my dirty mind lol. Nah... sex (or the suggestion
>>thereof) is a great sales tool no doubt, and not above
>>the Mormon's to try and use it apparently. I felt
>>like I was at an industry trade show where they hired
>>models to suck people into their booths.
>
>Actually, the sister missionaries that serve in SLC
>Temple Square really have no interest in you sexually.
Are you really this dense or are you just being a mule on purpose?
Does a hooker have interest in her john? The fact of "intereset" is not relevant to selling sex. An attractive young woman will always have greater success persuading Men to listen to them. And most times they have greater success with the women as well.
This is basic sales tactics. Attractive people generally make better sales people.
I can't believe I had to explain this simple psychology to a bigshot attorney.
Veritas is right. You not only miss the point often times, you also make up straw man arguments so that you can "win" your case.
>The fact that young women would give up personal
>ambitions in order to teach the faith they believe in
>at a cost all to themselves for 18 months should
>remind us of the scripture that "...by their fruits ye
>shall know them". Rather you would prefer the to self
>indulge in humantistic diatribe. My guess is that
>you're simply just a pervert or have motives that are
>not in the same vain as those taught by the Savior
>Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ of Kolob? I agree. I have no common motive with whoever that guy is lol.
Pervert? I already predicted you would say that. Can't you read???? Apparently not.
At least entertain me with something more witty next time.
I'm gettin bored with your nonsense.
And yeah, I made a lot of typos. Im in a hurry.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: To Name Required -- Mormon 210, 11:32:19 07/06/06 Thu
>>>Its funny seeing a Mormon refer to others as
>"kool-aid
>>>drinkers".
>>What in my religion requires blind faith?
Regarding blind faith you replied: Where do i start? you are a funny man!
I remind you that faith is blind (including yours). If not it would be knowledge. Otherwise prove to me Christ exists.
Regarding the tactic you suggest is used by the Church of Jesus Christ regarding women as missionaries at Temple Square you used the following analogy to support your positon in this manner:
>Does a hooker have interest in her john? The fact of
>"intereset" is not relevant to selling sex. An
>attractive young woman will always have greater
>success persuading Men to listen to them. And most
>times they have greater success with the women as well.
>This is basic sales tactics. Attractive people
>generally make better sales people.
In this regard thanks for the PSY 101.MARK 100 refresher, however, I will introduce you to PSY/MAR 401 with this example - I have never bought cat food because the cat had a nice set of tits. I simply bought it because the product met my expectations and goals. The fact that I am faithful purchaser of a particular brand of cat food indicates that I am happy with the intent and value of the product. Use of sex does not always create the expected outcome as was the case with Carl's Jr. Paris Hilton sex sells ad. Carl's Jr. experienced a decrease of sales and after recanting regained market share. This would indicate that the application of sex in the marketing process only lures one to purchase the product, it does not make them a faithful consumer of that product. Similarily, a person who joins the Church of Jesus Christ for the intent of a piece of ass generally won't stay committed to that faith unless the conversion has less topical application and a deeper internalization occurs. To describe my point better, a recent BYU study indicated that in the LDS church, activity (meaning attending Church regularly) is somewhere around 55%, adherence to the tenets of the faith are somewhat lower (indications show around 38%), but the study revealed that belief in the tentet is dramatically higher than activity levels would indicate (estimated at approximately 88%). This would suggest to me that the acceptance of the faith by a large majority of the converts is deeper than what you have expressed in terms topical marketing phsychology. Additionally, the vast majority of missionaries are young men of all shapes and sizes and appearances whose results are not based on their appearance (my personal or anecdotal experience - having seen homely missionaries have baptism success while more handsome ones were not having such success).
I will however provide one marketing tool that is being used at Temple Square, and the Church has been forthright about it with it membership. This is that the use of young women fits this application better because young missionary men are percieved as more aggressive while the sister are perceived as more patient and better listeners.
>I can't believe I had to explain this simple
>psychology to a bigshot attorney.
Bigshot would not describe my level of counsel. I would say "fairly decent at what I do in my area of expertise" describes me better. But this really has no relationship to defense my faith.
>Veritas is right. You not only miss the point often
>times, you also make up straw man arguments so that
>you can "win" your case.
The fact that you or I win a case is not relevant to fact. I am attempting to provide my perspective with regard to centric versions of my faith that you (obviously an expert in the application of my faith) tend to provide.
Regarding your statement on Christ: Jesus Christ of Kolob? I agree. I have no common motive with whoever that guy is lol.
Speaking of divergence, can't you simply accept that Christ is the one for which the Bible was written around and it is the interpretation of that doctrine that we don't agree on? In other words why go off on that road when it has no relevence to the topic.
>Pervert? I already predicted you would say that.
You were correct in your prediction as well I knew you would deny that you weren't a pervert but I guess I was wrong because you never did.
Mormon 210
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Re: The deity of Jesus Christ -- Mormon 210, 08:09:46 06/19/06 Mon
>My Dear Mormon210,
>
>I'm afraid logical analysis is something that evades
>LV at times...mostly while debating. Although I did
>enjoy his rebuttals to Brother D Thomas. LV certainly
>has a good sense of humour! (That's a complimant LV!!)
>
>Banshee
As you can see LV wants to debate under particular limits. From my perspective the only purpose of these limits is to control paths that may take one away from logical paths that would disprove his contentions.
Mormon 210
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
Do you believe? -- Capital Rendition, 14:09:25 03/20/09 Fri
>Lord,
>
>Again, regarding whether Christ was married. Have you proven to me that He wasn't? I stated categorically that He was married based on the logical construction of circumstantial evidence that I have available
Okay, when I became Christian, He said to me "Ask and it shall be given." He didn't say "I was married" or "I was single." He didn't tell me "Go bash LDS's & JW's." What he said was "Appreciate peoples' differences, but do not involve yourself in doubtful disputations -- they are as POISON to you." I've tried to live that for over 35 years, and I see no point in changing now. My faith is not based on Jesus' virginity or supposed lack of it; nor does the idea of His possible marriage to Miryam of Magdala threaten my faith in any way. My faith is based in the fact that He saved my life 35 years ago and I have never regretted it. Every word of Scripture could be made false, yet I would still believe in my Saviour.
>(lacking physical evidence-I never met Him nor anyone that knew him,
Sad. That was the comment that prompted my response.
"Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. MY SHEEP HEAR MY VOICE, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." (John 10:25-28)
"These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. And this is life eternal, THAT THEY MIGHT KNOW THEE THE ONLY TRUE GOD, AND JESUS CHRIST WHOM THOU HAST SENT." (John 17:1-3)
If you never met him or anyone who even claims to know him, by what standard are you claiming to to follow him?
>nor do I have an acceptable document making this contention). THE PREMISE IS THAT HE CREATED THE LAWS AND IN ORDER TO REMAIN PERFECT HE WOULD HAVE TO OBEY THEM.
>
>I also stated I did not have a document that stated Christ was married so absent that form of evidence you requested, I formed my hypothesis on circumstantial evidence and logical analysis.
>
>Thus I answered your question, I gave you the available evidence that I have. What else would you like?
>
>Mormon 210
False premise. Jesus, during his earthly ministry, made it clear that the worldly accretions on the law were all man-made, and vastly inferior to the PRE-EXISTING law of God.
"The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: BUT FROM THE BEGINNING IT WAS NOT SO." (Matthew 19:3-8)
"This people honoreth me with their lips; But their heart is far from me. But in vain do they worship me, Teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men." (Matthew 15:8-9; reference is to Isaiah 29:13)
"At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day. But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? BUT I SAY UNTO YOU, THAT IN THIS PLACE IS ONE GREATER THAN THE TEMPLE. BUT IF YE HAD KNOWN WHAT THIS MEANETH, I WILL HAVE MERCY, AND NOT SACRIFICE, YE WOULD NOT HAVE CONDEMNED THE GUILTLESS. For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day."
(Matthew 12:1-8; reference is to Hosea 6:6)
The point I'm trying to make here, is that, if you are claiming to be Christian, I am finding that I have less in common with you than what I was willing to grant you, on good will alone. You claim no personal relationship with Jesus Christ. This is sad. You claim that Jesus had to follow what would properly be called the traditions of men. Jesus tells us to "Judge not according to appearances, but judge with right judgment." What you said here, you "appear" to be doing more of the former than the latter, thus calling your own conclusions into doubt. I don't believe that that is what you intended.
You've got to do better. Be visionary.
========================================================
========================================================
THE VISIONARY
(Find the Path)
The LORD GOD Almighty came to the Visionary,
and speaking into his dream, declared:
"I am the LORD Your GOD who will bless you
My Child, for fulfilling My Commandments
For your love of My People
For your faithful declarations
For your intercessions for My Holy City
For all you have done in My Name
But you are hated for the sake of My Holy Name
And even now 'your life is on the line'
But you are preserved by My Boundless Mercy
If you remain in My Word
So take your family and flee this faithless land,
this cursed land -- 'Come out from amongst them, My People!
Pass through mists of darkness in the wilds as I command
For beyond lies the path to My Blessings."
[from "The Dream of Leihi" in "The Book of Mormon for Today", (c)2005 The Church of Jesus Christ, Lord of the Third Day, a.k.a. The Church of the Third Day (C3D)]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]