Mormons

Started by Thundar119 pages
Originally posted by Regret
Although, does the Bible state that Jesus was always with God? I haven't looked up the references, but I believe it states that Jesus was with God in the beginning, this doesn't necessarily imply always.

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Jesus is the "word" of God. The word of God has always been with him, and has always been but one way God manifests himself before his creations.

Originally posted by Regret
Show me more Biblical reference and less personal statement as to your position.

As far as I know, there is no real scriptural reference to this. It's possible that older texts and translations referenced Michael and Lucifer as "cherubs." If this is the case, then it's quite plausible that both angels were the first of God's creations, assuming that Darkone's definition of cherub as meaning first is correct. I'm not familiar with the etymology of the word to justify his statement as being correct though.

[EDIT]

Originally posted by Thundar
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Jesus is the "word" of God. The word of God has always been with him, and has always been but one way God manifests himself before his creations.

"In the beginning" does not necessitate always. In fact, if God is without beginning or end, "in the beginning" actually implies the opposite as it gives a point when the "Word", Christ, is with God. If he had always been with God the grammar here is clumsy. I take it to mean that Christ was God's first creation, thus, "in the beginning was the Word", not "always was the Word".

Originally posted by Regret
"In the beginning" does not necessitate always. In fact, if God is without beginning or end, "in the beginning" actually implies the opposite as it gives a point when the "Word", Christ, is with God. If he had always been with God the grammar here is clumsy. I take it to mean that Christ was God's first creation, thus, "in the beginning was the Word", not "always was the Word".

Exodus 3:14
God said to Moses, I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ?I am has sent me to you.?"

John 8:57-58
"You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"

"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born,
I am!"

Revelations 22:13
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.

So Jesus is at the beginning and end as he represents God in the flesh, and refers to himself as being the great "I AM" that came before Abraham in John 8:58. It's difficult to grasp I know, but one must have faith in what he's saying to be true in order to be saved. Not having faith in him being God, is essentially calling him a liar and disregarding his sacrifice on the cross.

Moving away from the discussion for a bit, were you raised a Mormon or were you a convert?

Originally posted by Thundar
Exodus 3:14
God said to Moses, [b]I am who I am.
This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ?I am has sent me to you.?"

John 8:57-58
"You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"

"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born,
I am!"

Revelations 22:13
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.

So Jesus is at the beginning and end as he represents God in the flesh, and refers to himself as being the great "I AM" that came before Abraham in John 8:58. It's difficult to grasp I know, but one must have faith in what he's saying to be true in order to be saved. Not having faith in him being God, is essentially calling him a liar and disregarding his sacrifice on the cross. [/B]

These verses still do not necessitate an "always" assumption, the beginning and end of what? Christ is the beginning and end our existence, he is the first and last thing necessary for proper belief, he is. It can be interpreted as "always", but such an interpretation is not necessarily accurate or true, and is not the interpretation I believe. I believe Christ is the God that speaks predominantly in the OT and NT. I believe that he and the Father are separate gods in the same manner that I am separate from other men. I believe that believing Christ is the Father is demeaning of his sacrifice.

Originally posted by Thundar
Moving away from the discussion for a bit, were you raised a Mormon or were you a convert?
I was born into an LDS family, my father is inactive (A member that does not participate in church functions, and disregards much of the advice given by the religion) and my mother is active.

Regardless of my upbringing, I have an extremely broad religious base. My family is particularly diverse in religious background though. I have close family in nearly all the major religions except Islam; Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, Born-again, non-denominational, Wiccans, and a couple of others. On top of this I have one or two very close friends in nearly every religion. I have studied with a Catholic priest, a Methodist Minister, a Baptist Minister, an Imam, and the local Buddhist leader to gain insight into their beliefs. I have completed four years of LDS Seminary, and six years of LDS Institute (University level religious studies) including world religion classes covering every religion.

I believe that all religious claims must be approached as though their beliefs may be more correct than one's current beliefs. As such, I spend a portion of my time studying and observing other beliefs, to do otherwise would be hypocritical for a person as a part of a strong proselyting religion such as the LDS church. I have studied in depth most religions.

I have, through my studies and experience decided that, imo, the LDS church is the only one to have a comparable structure to Biblical religion and good fruits.

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21 ¶ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Originally posted by Regret
"In the beginning" does not necessitate always. In fact, if God is without beginning or end, "in the beginning" actually implies the opposite as it gives a point when the "Word", Christ, is with God. If he had always been with God the grammar here is clumsy. I take it to mean that Christ was God's first creation, thus, "in the beginning was the Word", not "always was the Word".

"In the beginning" does not necessitate always. However, the next word 'was' is of critical importance. It shows that the word was pre-existant to the beginning. Also, notice that creation is not mentioned until verse 3 and that the Word created all things meaning that the Word (ie. Jesus) preceded creation meaning that Jesus could not be God's first creation, but must have always existed.

How can you hinge hinge a large argument on such a small word when the Bible is rife with translation errors?

Originally posted by Nellinator
"In the beginning" does not necessitate always. However, the next word 'was' is of critical importance. It shows that the word was pre-existant to the beginning. Also, notice that creation is not mentioned until verse 3 and that the Word created all things meaning that the Word (ie. Jesus) preceded creation meaning that Jesus could not be God's first creation, but must have always existed.
Relative position of speech. Stating that I was in the beginning of my children's lives is correct, does this mean that I was eternal or was not created myself? No. Thus, "in the beginning [in reference to my children] was the mother, and the mother was with the parent, and the mother was the parent", is an entirely accurate statement, but does not necessitate an always nor the wife being the husband.

Originally posted by Alliance
How can you hinge hinge a large argument on such a small word when the Bible is rife with translation errors?

What if I told you that that is the correction translation based on the original documents. I have been talking about the original language a lot lately because I've seen way to many misinterpretations based on the English translation.
Originally posted by Regret
Relative position of speech. Stating that I was in the beginning of my children's lives is correct, does this mean that I was eternal or was not created myself? No. Thus, "in the beginning [in reference to my children] was the mother, and the mother was with the parent, and the mother was the parent", is an entirely accurate statement, but does not necessitate an always nor the wife being the husband.

I'll slow it down here. First, Jesus is the Word according to John 1:14 yes?

Originally posted by Nellinator
I'll slow it down here. First, Jesus is the Word according to John 1:14 yes?
Just state your entire argument as you would any proof.

Here is mine:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

[list][*]"In the beginning was the Word" - Christ existed "in the beginning" - Word = Christ

[*]"the Word was with God" - Here we see Christ is with God, my interpretation has in this phrase - God = God the Father.

[*]"the Word was God" - Christ is God, unburdened by the unnecessary belief that there can be only one deity the interpretation is Christ is a god. God = Deity.[/list]

The Bible never denies the existence of other gods, it only admonishes against worshipping any but the Father.

Now, refute that such an interpretation is possibly accurate. I do not deny the possibility of other interpretations, this is mine.

But as we know everything was created by the Word, as 'Him' in the context of John chapter 1 and the Greek language shows the subject as being the Word. Since this is the case, Jesus cannot be a creation of God as Jesus is the Word that created all things. Therefore, as I previously stated the word 'was' shows the pre-existence of Jesus. And using your analogy, you are indeed pre-existing the beginning of your child's life (on earth that is), so you are pre-existing THAT beginning, but Jesus is pre-existing the beginning of any creation.

Originally posted by Nellinator
But as we know everything was created by the Word, as 'Him' in the context of John chapter 1 and the Greek language shows the subject as being the Word. Since this is the case, Jesus cannot be a creation of God as Jesus is the Word that created all things. Therefore, as I previously stated the word 'was' shows the pre-existence of Jesus. And using your analogy, you are indeed pre-existing the beginning of your child's life (on earth that is), so you are pre-existing THAT beginning, but Jesus is pre-existing the beginning of any creation.
Once again relative to man. Christ created all things under the direction of the Father. It doesn't threaten my concept, and is a part of Mormon theology. And I did agree I was pre-existing my child's life, it didn't stop me from having a separate "beginning".

The account say "all things" were created through the Word that is Jesus. This eliminates that creation of Jesus by the Father as possible.

Originally posted by Nellinator
The account say "all things" were created through the Word that is Jesus. This eliminates that creation of Jesus by the Father as possible.
👆 exactly

Jesus has always been with the Father, the first creation was Lucifer then the other angels than earth. Jesus made the universe even the angles, and the father created the angles for his Jesus.

Originally posted by the Darkone
👆 exactly

Jesus has always been with the Father, the first creation was Lucifer then the other angels than earth. Jesus made the universe even the angles, and the father created the angles for his Jesus.

What degrees did he give the angles?

I'm thinking it would be 90 degrees, cause God is always right. 😆

[EDIT] Hate when I spell a word wrong when doing a joke.

Their are different rankings of angles,

1. Cherub, The top Angel in heaven it was Lucifer's title, now Archangel Michael has that title.

2. Archangels- the generals, Gabrila, Raphael etc

3. The Cherubim Angels, also know as the warrior angles with four faces and six wings or four.

4. Angels- who are messengers and warriors.

and all angels including fallen angles are below Jesus, since Jesus and Lucifer can't be brothers since Lucifer was a angel. For to anybody claim or to think that Jesus and Lucifer are brother, is to me blasphemy

Seraphim rank above the Cherubs dude.

Originally posted by the Darkone
👆 exactly

Jesus has always been with the Father, the first creation was Lucifer then the other angels than earth. Jesus made the universe even the angles, and the father created the angles for his Jesus.

That sounds like mythical double talk.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Seraphim rank above the Cherubs dude.

what ever it is Michael is the top angel in heaven regardless.

Originally posted by the Darkone
Their are different rankings of angles,

1. Cherub, The top Angel in heaven it was Lucifer's title, now Archangel Michael has that title.

2. Archangels- the generals, Gabrila, Raphael etc

3. The Cherubim/Serahim Angels, also know as the warrior angles with four faces and six wings or four.

4. Angels- who are messengers and warriors.

and all angels including fallen angles are below Jesus, since Jesus and Lucifer can't be brothers since Lucifer was a angel. For to anybody claim or to think that Jesus and Lucifer are brother, is to me blasphemy