Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Absolutely. Definitely. Positively.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
God in mormonism
- Thread starter Kristoffer
- Start date
Orontes
Master of the Horse
Mormonism asserts the reality of the atonement. It is fundamental to the Plan of Salvation. As to how the atonement operates, that is something else. Mormonism is not an orthodoxic faith. It is orthopraxic. Meaning there is nothing remotely close to say the Catechism of the Catholic Church that defines a taxonomy of right belief. Mormonism does not have a theology. There is no Summa Theologica that lays out a full metaphysics. Rather the basic thrust is to see Christ as the Savior and exemplar, the belief in personal revelation and the attempt to pursue the good. So, while Mormons accept the atonement, and there are Mormons who would even opt for the same model of the atonement you proffered, there is no set delineation on the how of the atonement. Your model, that is more technically referred to as the penal substitution model, is but one of at least seven different ways of understanding how the atonement operates I can name without thinking about it.
I asked you to flush out your sense on the atonement because you conflated perfection and sinlessness and followed it with stating perfection is not a moral category. I think this is problematic. The atonement model you put forward is similarly problematic in that you seem to violate a base notion of justice: that the innocent ought not to suffer and the guilty go unpunished. The penal substitution model runs contra the idea of justice. If that is your view, then how does one justify it under any rational model of justice? It would appear one must either abandon reason or admit their model is unjust and thereby immoral. My guess is that you have adopted a positioning on the atonement that parallels what Clear was pointing out regarding views on the notion of God's singularity. A henotheistic understanding of Deity is more aligned to the ancient view of the Hebrews that can be seen from the Ugaritic texts up through at least the return from the Exile (and even later, depending on the scholarship one looks to). The same can be said of the atonement. The model you have opted for is by and large a Modernist construct whose roots lay in the 16th Century and the Reformed Thought of Calvin.
Last edited:
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
I was told on this thread that EP should take a person several billion years to become a god. How was Moses instantaneously designated a god and what proof do we have that he was a god? And why would he be the one god to carry the news "Thou shalt not place any gods before YHVH"?
I'm being a bit rhetorical. Moses was god to Pharaoh the same way I'm God to people I witness Christianity to, as Paul says, an ambassador--begging people to be reconciled to Jesus Christ. Moses brought the Word of God to Pharoah. Pharoah had broken the lines of communication to God.
Since you may not agree with the Jewish people who today (and I understand you have brought forward some intriguing ancient texts) would say it is a blasphemy to equate Moses with The God or to say he was a god rather than an ambassador as I've put it, would you at least agree that the ANCIENT Jews asked for Jesus Christ to die because Jesus equated Himself with God at one of His trials?
My feelings were hurt when you wrote things like I don't understand Judaism (or Christianity) being a Jewish Christian. I understand both. I was circumcised on the eight day following my birth in my home with many witnesses present. And I was Bar Mitzvah at a famous and prominent synagogue.
But I consider those things empty compared to knowing Jesus Christ, who was put onto a cross for the crime of saying He was God by people who clearly equated blasphemy with a man saying He can forgive sin, the province of the only God, alone.
**
Here are the references to the scripture we are discussing:
http:
[Isaiah 43:10 "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.
Please click on the link to see this verse in multiple versions. Thanks.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Jesus suffered. Justice was done. (And please don't take this personally, I respect you, but the atheists SOLIDLY/uniformly agree that substitutionary atonement lacks justice and is immoral).
I'm conversant with the idea that this presentation of substitutionary atonement is Modernist. Yet I've also observed that among the thousands of denominations that have arisen from Bible readers who constructed basic points of doctrine independently since that time, all of them have substitutionary atonement, which is why I'm confident in saying that it is a Biblicist position (which even the reformers only got right in part--I don't believe in limited atonement, for one of many examples).
I would say, therefore, that salvation is imputed, and that I'm both saved and living for Jesus, not to be saved, but for gratitude. If you rescued me from drowning, I'd thank you, not chastise you. Jesus saved me long ago and I try to do right by Him in return.
I was unaware you have seven different views on the atonement. But can we come to any conclusion when I proffer to you an eighth? How can we debate if you don't have a resolution to defend? I apologize for my confusion here if I'm misrepresenting your personal stance.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
One more thought if I may?
Jesus said in the gospels "Be ye perfect, even as your Heavenly Father is perfect." We must be like Heavenly Father to be saved. My doctrine re: perfection imputed isn't Modernist, it's biblical.
Jesus said in the gospels "Be ye perfect, even as your Heavenly Father is perfect." We must be like Heavenly Father to be saved. My doctrine re: perfection imputed isn't Modernist, it's biblical.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Being like Heavenly Father is, indeed, a commandment, not merely a suggestion, but I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that we must be perfect in order to be saved. Could you explain? Also, what do you mean by "perfect"? The dictionary gives a couple of different definitions, so I'd like to know what you see the word as meaning.
Clear said : As an example of the use of the designation of being as a “god”, Exodus 7:1 reads
And the Lord said to Moses, See, I give you [to be/as] god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall [be] thy prophet.
BillairdsBall now says “…Moses was god to Pharaoh…” and “… I'm God…” (post # 83)
BilliardsBall, you said “I'm willing to change my viewpoint on this doctrine, certainly…”, but I did not realize you were going to change so rapidly. I appreciate your admission that that Jehovah gave Moses to be a God, just as Exo 7:1 says he was. Now that you claim you are also God as well (an "ambassadorial "type" of a God as a category). Perhaps this new theory of yours will help you begin to see other applications for this designation. How does your own newly discovered Godhood change several aspects of your prior theory?
1) For example, though you now say “…Moses was god to Pharaoh…” and “… I'm God…” (post # 83) However you said before that “…there are no other gods but idols that represent divinities, behind which are the powers of demons. " (post 26) Now you claim that you are God. Does your claim to be a God mean that you are an "idol" and have a demon as your prior theory suggests, or have you modified your theory to now recognize other types of beings with the designation of Gods who are NOT idols and do not have the powers of demons. If you now are also claiming to have the power of a demon, what is that power? Is it like a super-power and will it allow you to now make truthful claims and give us correct and accurate quotes without embellishment? What is the power your demon bestows upon you now that you are a God? Or, do you now recognize that NOT all beings designated gods are in the narrow category you described in your prior theory?
2) For example, though you now say “…Moses was god to Pharaoh…” and “… I'm God…” (post # 83) You said in post 49 “…every other God besides YHVH is to be utterly destroyed. “
Now that you are a God, do you plan suicide or some other sort of “self-destruction” or does your theory now recognize that not all beings designated “gods” are to be destroyed?
3) For example, though you now say “…Moses was god to Pharaoh…” and “… I'm God…” (post # 83) You said in post 54 “We can actually destroy idols but not other gods, since other gods do not exist."
Since you are now claiming that you are a God, in this new theoretical twist, are you now claiming that you don’t exist, or that you do exist but you cannot be destroyed or that there is another universe in which all of your claims can be true and rational and logical? OR, since you are now claiming to be a God, you are now allowing that not all beings designated gods are idols (since, I assume, you are not claiming to be an "idol" as well as a god??) and you are allowing that you, as a god, exist.
4) For example, though you now say “…Moses was god to Pharaoh…” and “… I'm God…” (post # 83) You said in post 57 : “ in 1 Corinthians that idols (statues to gods of the Gentiles, the Jews were forbidden from erecting graven images of YHVH) were nothing, and that behind them was the power of demons, and that he wanted Christians to not offer food to demons?
Does this mean you cannot accept any invitations to lunch or to dinner parties, or has your main theory adjusted to allow mortal-Gods, like Moses and yourself to accept dinner invitations? That is, does this scripture even apply to ALL beings that are designated "god", or, are you now theorizing that there are some other beings designated as a "god", like you and Moses, that are NOT what is meant by such scriptures?
5) For example, though you now say “…Moses was god to Pharaoh…” and “… I'm God…” (post # 83) You said in post 61 : “I will not ever progress toward godhood. “
Since you now claim that you ARE a God, does your current theory still deny “progress” toward Godhood? That is, are you now claiming that your Godhood was spontaneous, like a sort of “spontaneous combustion” or arbitrary cosmic conditions coming to a head like Peter Parker being bitten by a radioactive spider? If you did not “progress” toward the godhood you now claim you have, then how did you achieve your godhood?
6) For example, though you now say “…Moses was god to Pharaoh…” and “… I'm God…” (post # 83) You said in post 73 : “… I'm unsure of how we might use any kind of context to misunderstand terms like "no other" or "only God" or "Before me, no other gods were nor shall there be any after me".”
Presumably, it is obvious that your “Godiness” came (temporally), AFTER Jehovahs Godhood. Does the fact that Moses and you have both achieved godhood, change your interpretation or are you now willing to admit that there are beings other than Jehovah who have been designated “gods”, especially since you now claim that you, yourself have this designation.
I honestly HOPE that with your new Godliness, you will learn not to embellish scriptures since the scripture you quoted (I alluded to it in post #80) doesn't exist in any english nor greek nor hebrew bible that I've been able to search on google. It doesn't even exist in the reference you provided us. I think your "scripture" as quoted is incorrect and represents yet one more embellished misquote. Are you able to admit that you "fudged" and "embellished" the biblical text, (as readers can already see for themselves)?
In any case, despite your claim to be a god, do not expect us to worship you and I do not believe I will be punished by God if I offer food to you by inviting you to lunch. In any case, I honestly wish you the best spiritual journey in this life as you work out your theories.
Clear
ειτζφινεω
And the Lord said to Moses, See, I give you [to be/as] god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall [be] thy prophet.
BillairdsBall now says “…Moses was god to Pharaoh…” and “… I'm God…” (post # 83)
BilliardsBall, you said “I'm willing to change my viewpoint on this doctrine, certainly…”, but I did not realize you were going to change so rapidly. I appreciate your admission that that Jehovah gave Moses to be a God, just as Exo 7:1 says he was. Now that you claim you are also God as well (an "ambassadorial "type" of a God as a category). Perhaps this new theory of yours will help you begin to see other applications for this designation. How does your own newly discovered Godhood change several aspects of your prior theory?
1) For example, though you now say “…Moses was god to Pharaoh…” and “… I'm God…” (post # 83) However you said before that “…there are no other gods but idols that represent divinities, behind which are the powers of demons. " (post 26) Now you claim that you are God. Does your claim to be a God mean that you are an "idol" and have a demon as your prior theory suggests, or have you modified your theory to now recognize other types of beings with the designation of Gods who are NOT idols and do not have the powers of demons. If you now are also claiming to have the power of a demon, what is that power? Is it like a super-power and will it allow you to now make truthful claims and give us correct and accurate quotes without embellishment? What is the power your demon bestows upon you now that you are a God? Or, do you now recognize that NOT all beings designated gods are in the narrow category you described in your prior theory?
2) For example, though you now say “…Moses was god to Pharaoh…” and “… I'm God…” (post # 83) You said in post 49 “…every other God besides YHVH is to be utterly destroyed. “
Now that you are a God, do you plan suicide or some other sort of “self-destruction” or does your theory now recognize that not all beings designated “gods” are to be destroyed?
3) For example, though you now say “…Moses was god to Pharaoh…” and “… I'm God…” (post # 83) You said in post 54 “We can actually destroy idols but not other gods, since other gods do not exist."
Since you are now claiming that you are a God, in this new theoretical twist, are you now claiming that you don’t exist, or that you do exist but you cannot be destroyed or that there is another universe in which all of your claims can be true and rational and logical? OR, since you are now claiming to be a God, you are now allowing that not all beings designated gods are idols (since, I assume, you are not claiming to be an "idol" as well as a god??) and you are allowing that you, as a god, exist.
4) For example, though you now say “…Moses was god to Pharaoh…” and “… I'm God…” (post # 83) You said in post 57 : “ in 1 Corinthians that idols (statues to gods of the Gentiles, the Jews were forbidden from erecting graven images of YHVH) were nothing, and that behind them was the power of demons, and that he wanted Christians to not offer food to demons?
Does this mean you cannot accept any invitations to lunch or to dinner parties, or has your main theory adjusted to allow mortal-Gods, like Moses and yourself to accept dinner invitations? That is, does this scripture even apply to ALL beings that are designated "god", or, are you now theorizing that there are some other beings designated as a "god", like you and Moses, that are NOT what is meant by such scriptures?
5) For example, though you now say “…Moses was god to Pharaoh…” and “… I'm God…” (post # 83) You said in post 61 : “I will not ever progress toward godhood. “
Since you now claim that you ARE a God, does your current theory still deny “progress” toward Godhood? That is, are you now claiming that your Godhood was spontaneous, like a sort of “spontaneous combustion” or arbitrary cosmic conditions coming to a head like Peter Parker being bitten by a radioactive spider? If you did not “progress” toward the godhood you now claim you have, then how did you achieve your godhood?
6) For example, though you now say “…Moses was god to Pharaoh…” and “… I'm God…” (post # 83) You said in post 73 : “… I'm unsure of how we might use any kind of context to misunderstand terms like "no other" or "only God" or "Before me, no other gods were nor shall there be any after me".”
Presumably, it is obvious that your “Godiness” came (temporally), AFTER Jehovahs Godhood. Does the fact that Moses and you have both achieved godhood, change your interpretation or are you now willing to admit that there are beings other than Jehovah who have been designated “gods”, especially since you now claim that you, yourself have this designation.
I honestly HOPE that with your new Godliness, you will learn not to embellish scriptures since the scripture you quoted (I alluded to it in post #80) doesn't exist in any english nor greek nor hebrew bible that I've been able to search on google. It doesn't even exist in the reference you provided us. I think your "scripture" as quoted is incorrect and represents yet one more embellished misquote. Are you able to admit that you "fudged" and "embellished" the biblical text, (as readers can already see for themselves)?
In any case, despite your claim to be a god, do not expect us to worship you and I do not believe I will be punished by God if I offer food to you by inviting you to lunch. In any case, I honestly wish you the best spiritual journey in this life as you work out your theories.
Clear
ειτζφινεω
Last edited:
Orontes
Master of the Horse
A logical critique is not dependent on the personal beliefs of any interlocutor, whether they be an atheist, Buddhist, or suffers from exposure to Country Music. Rationality is concerned with the validity of the argument, not personal sentiments. Per the Penal Substitution Atonement model: the challenge I presented is that it is at it's core unjust and therefore, immoral. If it is unjust and immoral, then it cannot be associated with Deity. I gave a definitional argument, it violates the notion of what is just: that the innocent ought not to suffer or the guilty go unpunished. Your statement "Jesus suffered. Justice was done" does not follow. How does the suffering of an innocent constitute justice? Simple assertion that one leads to the other will not do.
Per substitutionary atonement and Modernity: something does not become Biblical simply because X number hold to view Y. Quantity does not constitute rectitude. The most quantity can accomplish is consensus. If all the world believed the moon is made of blue cheese would not make it so. Further, to assert a Modernist (and therefore by definition contrived) understanding is Biblical is anachronistic. In other words, given the writers and compilers of the text were not Calvinists, or in any way connected to Reformed Christianity, Calvinist hermeneutics are on their face flawed.
Finally, your statement that perfection is not a moral category remains unexplained. Deity's goodness is arguably an essential trait. If you hold:
1) God is good
2) Men must be like God to be saved (per your post #85)
3) Then, men must be good to be saved.
If you reject 1) then God is unworthy of devotion.
Note: so it's clear, I stated I was aware of seven different versions of the atonement. These come from larger Christian Theology.
Last edited:
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
On a scriptural basis, I'm an ambassador for God. I'm not God or a god or an idol. An ambassador, be it you or me or Moses, is not a country or a President, let alone a god.
I don't believe I misquoted Isaiah 43:10. Here it is in several formats. I have trouble reconciling that these mean we will become gods via Eternal Progression at some future date:
New International Version
"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.
New Living Translation
"But you are my witnesses, O Israel!" says the LORD. "You are my servant. You have been chosen to know me, believe in me, and understand that I alone am God. There is no other God--there never has been, and there never will be.
English Standard Version
“You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.
New American Standard Bible
"You are My witnesses," declares the LORD, "And My servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and believe Me And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me.
King James Bible
Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
You are My witnesses"-- this is the LORD's declaration--" and My servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe Me and understand that I am He. No god was formed before Me, and there will be none after Me.
International Standard Version
"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and trust me and understand that I am the One. Before me no God was formed, nor will there be one after me.
NET Bible
You are my witnesses," says the LORD, "my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may consider and believe in me, and understand that I am he. No god was formed before me, and none will outlive me.
GOD'S WORD® Translation
"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD. "I have chosen you as my servant so that you can know and believe in me and understand that I am the one [who did this]. No god was formed before me, and there will be none after me.
Jubilee Bible 2000
Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my slave whom I have chosen that ye may know and believe me and understand that I am he; before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
King James 2000 Bible
You are my witnesses, says the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that you may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
American King James Version
You are my witnesses, said the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that you may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
American Standard Version
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
Douay-Rheims Bible
You are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that you may know, and believe me, and understand that I myself am. Before me there was no God formed, and after me there shall be none.
Darby Bible Translation
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I [am] HE: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
English Revised Version
Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he; before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
Webster's Bible Translation
Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no god formed, neither shall there be after me.
World English Bible
"You are my witnesses," says Yahweh, "With my servant whom I have chosen; that you may know and believe me, and understand that I am he. Before me there was no God formed, neither will there be after me.
Young's Literal Translation
Ye are My witnesses, an affirmation of Jehovah, And My servant whom I have chosen, So that ye know and give credence to Me, And understand that I am He, Before Me there was no God formed, And after Me there is none.
Thanks.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Our sins must be forgiven for us to be saved. I see three possibilities in the scriptures that require hermeneutics to choose the correct one:
1. Jesus forgives sin
2. We may do actions to have our sins dissolved/forgiven
3. A combination of 1 and 2
Do LDS members believe in 2 or 3? Thank you.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Calvinists don't believe in assurance or unlimited atonement. I'm neither Calvinist nor Armenian. I'm a Biblicist.
I agree that innocents should not suffer. Indeed, God hates when innocents suffer. However, I have preached on the atonement as an example of God Himself choosing the higher law. But before we confuse the issue further, may I ask you for what reason Jesus died and rose? I thought it was for salvation for others. I thought the animal sacrifices pointed to Christ. Those covered sin on a temporary basis only (Hebrews) but in literally millions of sacrifices, covered the guilty with the blood of the innocent.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
I'd say we believe in a combination of #1 and #2. What we must "do" in order to have our sins forgiven is sincerely repent of them. This involves recognizing what we have done wrong, feeling sincere remorse for our wrong-doing, and making a real commitment to do better in the future.
I'm still unclear as to how forgiveness of our sins makes us perfect, though.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Sin in the Bible is imperfection. To have one's sins removed is to be without imperfection and thus able to enter a perfect place in the next world. If we have strife in the next world, if I hurt you or cause you distress, it is no longer a perfect utopia. Only perfect people can reside in a perfect place without marring its perfection.
Part of my doctrine extends from whether we are #1 or #2 or both regarding salvation. Either I will make dinner tonight for the family or my spouse will or we both will. Jesus saves, not Jesus saves kind of but I have to also... you know what I mean?
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
I agree that the Bible teaches that sin is imperfection. What the Bible does not teach is that the lack of sin is perfection. Even a person who is without sin is not necessarily perfect. He has yet to attain perfection in terms of his knowledge and capabilities.
I know what you mean, and I find the way you put it ("Jesus saves kind of, but I have to also") as being pretty misleading. Numerous New Testament passages teach that we are to be active participants in the process of our salvation. I could easily provide you with perhaps a dozen examples. This one, though, is as clear as can be:
Hebrews 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.
Jesus expects something from us besides a mere confession of belief. He expects our full commitment to Him. That doesn't mean we can save ourselves. This is something that is completely beyond our capability as human beings to do. Every last one of us absolutely, positively needs Jesus Christ in order to be saved.
Orontes
Master of the Horse
Being a Biblicist doesn't really convey any meaning. All Christians claim a belief in the Bible and that their take on it is the correct one. Even if one were to grant your title, it faces the larger difficulty, which Bible? There is more than one Bible.
I don't know what you mean by higher law. You seem to recognize that innocents should not suffer (which is a principle of justice). Are you claiming there is a principle that trumps justice: where one posits, per justice, the innocent shouldn't suffer, but it's OK in this instance? How does that work? Why isn't that simply incoherent? Your earlier comment "Jesus suffered, justice was done" remains problematic.
Do you also agree the guilty should not go unpunished?
Your earlier comment that perfection is not a moral category remains another problem for you. I gave you a simple argument demonstrating the issue in logical terms.
To your question on Jesus' death and resurrection: Mormons hold that from the Fall there were two deaths incurred. One is spiritual: separation for God. The other was physical death. Jesus' death and resurrection was to break the Gates of Hell whereby all could be resurrected and escape the bounds of physical death. Christ was the first fruits, the first to resurrect. All men will be similarly resurrected at some point. This is seen as something no mere mortal man could overcome. Christ's action is taken as a free gift.
Below are remaining issues:
Your embrace of penal substitution atonement remains both irrational and immoral.
Your adopted hermeneutic is contrived, and therefore contra the very tradition that constructed the Bible (undercutting your Biblicist title)
Your notion that sinlessness constitutes perfection is to confuse necessity and sufficiency. Being without sin is necessary to be perfect, but does not alone determine perfection. An acorn is without sin, but it is not perfect.
1) Regarding BilliardsBall habitual embellishments :
BilliardsBall now says : “I don't believe I misquoted Isaiah 43:10.” And then he offers us 19 examples of how he DID misquote Isaiah from different modern translations, NONE of which are the same as his quote of Isaiah 43:10!
Congratulations BilliardsBall; you MUST have broken some sort of internet record. You have given us 19 more examples of interpretations which are different than your quote in post # 73.
In doing so, yet again, you give readers even MORE evidence that your “quote” in 73 did NOT come from any known Bible, but was yet another personal embellishment.
Did you think readers would not notice?
If your "bible quotes" are contrived and made up, then you are NOT a "biblicist". YOU are NOT a “Biblicist” if you are simply re-interpreting and redefining biblical text to agree with your modern, personal, theories.
2) Regarding Exodus 7:1 where Moses is given to be a God to Pharoah :
Exodus 7:1 reads And "Jehovah/Lord" said to Moses, See, I give you [to be] god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall [be] thy prophet.
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, רְאֵה נְתַתִּיךָ אֱלֹהִים לְפַרְעֹה; וְאַהֲרֹן אָחִיךָ, יִהְיֶה נְבִיאֶךָ. (t.r.)
καὶ εἶπεν κύριος πρὸς Μωυσῆν λέγων ἰδοὺ δέδωκά σε θεὸν Φαραω καὶ Ααρων ὁ ἀδελφός σου ἔσται σου προφήτης (LXX)
BillairdsBall, in post 83 claimed to be a God like Moses was a God (of an “ambassadorial type”) (post # 83). However, now, BilliardBall admits “I'm not God or a god or an idol. An ambassador, be it you or me or Moses, is not a country or a President, let alone a god.”
OK, so you were only temporarily increased in rank in post #83 and now you are demoted from a “god” to an “ambassador”.
Your personal theory requires the word "god" NOT to mean "god". So, you simply declare that, in order to support your theology, the hebrew, אֱלֹהִים(elohim) which means “god” , will, on your planet, now temporarily and in this case, mean “ambassador” and greek Θεον (Theon) which also means “god”, will also, on your planet, temporarily and in this case, now mean “ambassador”.
However,on the planet, where the rest of us live, historically, it meant and still means “god” to the individuals who wrote it and to the ancient Judeo-Christians who read it. Are you sure you want to attempt to create a theory on such a shaky, irrational, illogical and unhistorical set of tenuous circumstances that are so easily disproved?
Why don't you simply allow the early Judeo-Christian literature (and it's meanings) to keep their ancient meanings and original uses? Your beliefs ARE NOT authentic early Judeo-Christian beliefs on this point.
For example, in the Jewish DISCOURSE ON THE EXODUS AND CONQUEST from 4q374 (dead sea scroll), the Jewish writer says God made Moses as “a god over the mighty”.
These Jews, in discussing what the scriptures from Exodus meant to THEM at this time, make clear that they did not believe in the theory you have come up with, but instead they believed in what the text actually said. Your modern theories separate you from real and authentic “biblicists” of old. You change biblical meanings to support your theories, real “biblicists” do not do this.
BilliardsBall, At some point, you are going to have to give me some sort of evidence that you are not an athiest or a member of some other religion that is pretending to be a Christian so as to make Christians look silly and dishonest. Do you have any evidence that you are really, and truly a Christian who is simply making up these silly, historically unsound, irrational theories out of honest belief, rather than out of desire to harm the christian cause? If so, what evidence do you have?
Clear
ειειαξδρω
BilliardsBall now says : “I don't believe I misquoted Isaiah 43:10.” And then he offers us 19 examples of how he DID misquote Isaiah from different modern translations, NONE of which are the same as his quote of Isaiah 43:10!
Congratulations BilliardsBall; you MUST have broken some sort of internet record. You have given us 19 more examples of interpretations which are different than your quote in post # 73.
In doing so, yet again, you give readers even MORE evidence that your “quote” in 73 did NOT come from any known Bible, but was yet another personal embellishment.
Did you think readers would not notice?
If your "bible quotes" are contrived and made up, then you are NOT a "biblicist". YOU are NOT a “Biblicist” if you are simply re-interpreting and redefining biblical text to agree with your modern, personal, theories.
2) Regarding Exodus 7:1 where Moses is given to be a God to Pharoah :
Exodus 7:1 reads And "Jehovah/Lord" said to Moses, See, I give you [to be] god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall [be] thy prophet.
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, רְאֵה נְתַתִּיךָ אֱלֹהִים לְפַרְעֹה; וְאַהֲרֹן אָחִיךָ, יִהְיֶה נְבִיאֶךָ. (t.r.)
καὶ εἶπεν κύριος πρὸς Μωυσῆν λέγων ἰδοὺ δέδωκά σε θεὸν Φαραω καὶ Ααρων ὁ ἀδελφός σου ἔσται σου προφήτης (LXX)
BillairdsBall, in post 83 claimed to be a God like Moses was a God (of an “ambassadorial type”) (post # 83). However, now, BilliardBall admits “I'm not God or a god or an idol. An ambassador, be it you or me or Moses, is not a country or a President, let alone a god.”
OK, so you were only temporarily increased in rank in post #83 and now you are demoted from a “god” to an “ambassador”.
Your personal theory requires the word "god" NOT to mean "god". So, you simply declare that, in order to support your theology, the hebrew, אֱלֹהִים(elohim) which means “god” , will, on your planet, now temporarily and in this case, mean “ambassador” and greek Θεον (Theon) which also means “god”, will also, on your planet, temporarily and in this case, now mean “ambassador”.
However,on the planet, where the rest of us live, historically, it meant and still means “god” to the individuals who wrote it and to the ancient Judeo-Christians who read it. Are you sure you want to attempt to create a theory on such a shaky, irrational, illogical and unhistorical set of tenuous circumstances that are so easily disproved?
Why don't you simply allow the early Judeo-Christian literature (and it's meanings) to keep their ancient meanings and original uses? Your beliefs ARE NOT authentic early Judeo-Christian beliefs on this point.
For example, in the Jewish DISCOURSE ON THE EXODUS AND CONQUEST from 4q374 (dead sea scroll), the Jewish writer says God made Moses as “a god over the mighty”.
These Jews, in discussing what the scriptures from Exodus meant to THEM at this time, make clear that they did not believe in the theory you have come up with, but instead they believed in what the text actually said. Your modern theories separate you from real and authentic “biblicists” of old. You change biblical meanings to support your theories, real “biblicists” do not do this.
BilliardsBall, At some point, you are going to have to give me some sort of evidence that you are not an athiest or a member of some other religion that is pretending to be a Christian so as to make Christians look silly and dishonest. Do you have any evidence that you are really, and truly a Christian who is simply making up these silly, historically unsound, irrational theories out of honest belief, rather than out of desire to harm the christian cause? If so, what evidence do you have?
Clear
ειειαξδρω
Last edited:
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
I would never say "a confession of belief". I would rather say, "transferring my trust from myself, and that my works are sufficient, to trusting Jesus alone for salvation." Further, no one who is truly saved will lack the will to do good. If you are drowning and I say, "Stop swimming. You are hurting your cause in this rip tide, not helping it, stop swimming and relax, I'll save you," and you do so and I rescue you, when we get to shore, you will say, "Thanks! How can I show my thanks!" I think it's so belittling to say, "Christians just say 'I'm saved now, awesome, catch you later, Jesus, gotta go sin now,'" -- and I'm not saying you're doing this, but anyone who understands salvation with clarity will have the will to do good going forward. Jesus Himself indicated that the more sinful a person was before, the more love they'd have for Jesus, and gratitude. If it is by works, it isn't by grace (Romans 11:5) and also, the more religious people would have a higher standing in grace.
I would of course say, "obey Him unto salvation". There are verses that say, "obey His will" and that "His will is that all people trust Him for salvation" and there are verses that say, "obey the gospel" and others say lost people "obey not the gospel".
However, we can also say that if salvation requires obeying all commands of God in the scriptures that no one is saved. This is one of the points James makes in the very place where people misinterpret James as saying we need works to be saved. "Everyone who breaks [any] law is a lawbreaker." I can be expelled from school for cheating, plagiarizing, dealing drugs or simply not paying tuition. I need only do one, not all of these things to be expelled. James himself makes a case, therefore, that to break one of God's commands is to be a lost sinner. We need Jesus, and Jesus only.
Yes, I know that most who identify as Christians identify as helpers, workers and partners in salvation. But to be honest, the scriptures indicate to my understanding that I should be concerned that people understand the true, clear gospel. When I take the bus somewhere, I wholly trust the bus driver to take me to my destination. I rest on the bus, and I need not work to help the driver, I don't read the map, use the GPS, honk the bus horn, etc. My understanding is that Jesus takes us to Heaven/the new age without our aid. If you asked me where the door is to the third heaven, I couldn't say. I can say the front door on Pennsylvania Avenue gets you in the White House, but Jesus said, "I AM the door."
Orontes
Master of the Horse
Question: Can one be forced to heaven against their will? Per your analogy, how does one get on the bus, do they enter themselves, or are they forced on?
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
I believe in free will. For us and for God. Once I saw the bus was headed to truth, I got aboard after some initial resistance. I repudiate Calvinst doctrines including predestination regarding salvation.