Rambler55

Jewish Questions for Mormons

I'm often amazed at the vast array of religions we have today - and what's even more amazing is that everyone claims to be correct! However, I will concede that many religions share commonality with each other (i.e. Judaism & Christianity). And in some respects, Mormons seem to fit the mold of "Christians" apart from various doctrines that the mainstream will not accept.

As a believer in Judaism (although I'm also a Christian), I like to use my Jewish heritage as a "litmus" test for religious accuracy. Since the Tanakh teaches that Hebrews were the first to receive a Covenant relationship with El Shaddai, Judaism forms the foundation of “true religion”. So in turn, how do other faiths build on that? Do they teach about a different understanding of God, or perhaps they fashion God into the image that best suits them - all contrary to Hebrew Scripture by the way. I once heard that Yeshua (Jesus) came to the Jewish people (and the Gentiles) to create a relationship and not a new religion. That seems to reconcile my point, especially since His first disciples never abandoned Judaism. The concept is spelled out in both the Hebrew Tanakh and the Christian New Testament as well. Yeshua didn’t preach about a "new God" or the coming of a "new religion". Yeshua simply revealed the fullness of Isreal's God through Himself.

So then, as a descendant of Abraham, I must ask the question - how does the Mormon view of God stack up against the Jewish-Jesus view? Does the LDS faith teach the existence of One – and only One God (Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 44:6, Mark 12:29)? Does it teach that the God of Isreal is eternal and unchanging (Genesis 21:33, Malachi 3:6)?

Moreover The New Testament teaches us that the Messiah Yeshua is God (John 1:1, Titus 2:13, ect). Therefore keeping with monotheism, Christians worship Yeshua as YHWH Elohim – the One "LORD God" of Israel. The Hebrew Bible and the New Testament don't teach about plural "Gods". It teaches about One Eternal God who at the appointed time, was destined to clothe himself in flesh and become the Messiah of His people (Isaiah 9:6, Philippians 2:6-8). In turn, Do Mormons accept that Yeshua is YHWH? Do they acknowledge the Everlasting origins of the Messiah (Micah 5:2)? I believe this is why the Judeo-Christian community by in large doesn’t accept them as "Christians". What are your thoughts? Please respond below.Mmirarchi

"I have never heard of a man being condemned for believing too much. They are the skeptics that have reason to fear."--Mexiswenson 00:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Your view is right and theres wrong? they believe one god aswell as other xtians do. Dont go quoting scriptures or ill comment on how when god wrote the bible he made mistakes (he forgot it was a sphere) LOL anyway any bible you quote from has been editied and translated copied bu man and therfore must have mistakes!--Polygamistx4 15:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Responses to Jewish Questions

Mmirarchi -I apologize if these questions are just ambiguities that you are pointing out to explain why Mormon's aren't accepted by "mainstream" christianity, because I'm going to throw in my two cents here. I think the reason we aren't accepted by mainstream christianity is partly due to historical bigotry rooted in the 19th century against the early latter day saint movement, and that all the other doctrinal and historical considerations are secondary to that fact.

gdavies - Thanks for joining in. Your input is warmly welcomed. In response to your post, I actually considered my questions straight forward. I’m surprised that most religious groups who claim to be "Christians" have a notably hard time providing a “Yes” or “No” answer. Can I be open for a moment...Jews (and most Christians) see Mormons as "re-inventing" the God of Israel to fit a specific set of teachings. In turn, most Christian faith groups are obligated to reject the LDS proposal entirely since by nature, God cannot change (Malachi 3:6). Therefore if God cannot change, YHWH of the Old Testament must be YHWH of the New Testament - and the Book of Mormon for that matter. If He's not, then something is wrong with somebody's teaching. Mmirarchi 18:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Mmirarchi - I agree that Christ came to fulfill the Mosaic law, not to destroy it, and of course not to start a "new religion." God doesn't change, his truths are eternal. I do believe that there has been a cycle throughout the history of the world where God restores his gospel through a prophet and then later the people fall away, leading to another restoration. This started with Adam, and continues today. The apostasy before the flood is similar to that before Christ's personal ministry and after the death of his apostles, and I believe that this is what happened before the final restoration of his gospel (to Joseph Smith).

gdavies - I can actually accept that as a possibility. I don’t see the need to quibble about every detail. Scripture does teach that civilizations have fallen away from God many times and "restorations" have been needed - I’m O.K. with that. My hang-up is over the Gospel message that was given to Joseph Smith. Since we already established that God doesn’t change (Malachi 3:6) and Israel has but One God (Isaiah 44:6), how is Joseph Smith's revelation conducive to these previous truths? I've found that although The Book of Mormon builds on the Bible, it also seems to change the nature of God somewhat. So I’m personally not sure I would catalog such changes as "restorations". If anything they should be viewed as "new revelations". To restore something means to bring it back to its original luster. If you read my previous post under " Jewish Questions for Mormons", you'll see that the restoration of Mormonism doesn’t seem to bring the LDS church back to the original Jewish understanding of God. Nicene creeds & Vatican doctrines aside, Judaism is the original faith. It ushered in the Messiah, it predates Catholicism by 4000 years and the Mormon church by almost 6000. So my friend, how do your teachings reconcile with Judaism? Again, we’re back to " Jewish Questions for Mormons". Mmirarchi 18:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting points, as has been mentioned below quite succinctly, we all see the scriptures through our own "lenses" or our set of beliefs that are the product of numerous factors. One of the most obvious factors for Mormons that affect their perspective is their belief in continuing revelation, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. As I read the Old Testament, it's evident to me that there are many contrasts between the Mosaic Law/culture and the "new" expectations of true believers set forth by Christ during his ministry. The main difference, as I perceive it, is a change from the outward to the inward - rather than a focus on ceremonies there is a focus on our attitude/charity and caring for others. Rather than focusing on sin and its physical consequences (eye for an eye) there is a "new" focus on our desires, and added responsibility to take care that we not only avoid killing people, but that we are to avoid being angry with them. These differences are great, but they're not irreconcilable by any stretch. Gospel truths (including the nature of God and his plan for us in this life) have and will continue to remain constant, as they are truths that cannot change. A similar difference can be seen between what I believe is Christ's church in the latter days and that described in the Bible, with gospel truths remaining constant, and shifts in focus as dictated by continuing revelation. One last point; I think that different amounts of gospel truth have been revealed at different periods of the earth's history according to what God feels is necessary for us to have in order to succeed. I don't see any flat contradictions in the Bible (specifically in reference to the nature of God) with Mormon beliefs, as I don't see any substantial contradictions between the New Testament and the Old Testament with regard to these types of important gospel truths. (there are many things talked about in the New Testament that aren't really mentioned in the Old Testament, such as Baptism. Of course, there are numerous scriptures that have been interpreted very differently according to our viewpoints. One example we've already talked about is Psalms 82. I interpret this chapter to support a few different doctrines that are considered rather unique to Mormons (including a plurality of "gods" or heavenly beings that God rules over, our relationship to God as his spiritual children, and our potential to become like God) while you interpret the rather ambiguous wording/phrasing to not be directed towards us at all. I can see your viewpoint, perhaps you can see mine, but I doubt you are convinced by my interpretation (and I will admit I am not convinced by yours :) ). It's for this exact purpose that I believe continuing revelation is absolutely imperative for our progress and for the gospel to be kept "pure" and properly understood - the wide variance in interpretation of scripture (even disregarding Mormons specifically) is to me a very convincing evidence of the occurrence of a general apostasy. gdavies 03:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally I feel that the Mormon concept of Diety falls into line with the pre-exile Jewish concept perfectly. The monotheistic "plurality" of gods (implied by the plural Hebrew form "Elohim") is mentioned and implied throughout the scriptures, as is our similarity to God and our potential to become more like God. (Psalms 82:6, for instance, "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.)

gdavies, Hebrews have only One Adonai. Elohim can mean "gods" but in reference to the God of Israel it's known to mean YHWH. In fact, a limited understanding of Hebrew could actually dig the avearge Mormon a deeper hole and validate the Trinitarian concept further. Since Hebrews have One God (YHWH) but He's often spoken of in the plural form (i.e. Elohim), your proposal could quickly reconcile the Christian Triunity - YHWH Elohim. Your reference to "gods" in Psalm 82 likely refers to angels (as you pointed out - Hebrew sometimes calls angelic beings "Elohim"). It doesn’t give any indication it's speaking to mankind. Mmirarchi 18:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The Mormon concept is that there is one God that we all worship (big "G") and that there are other exalted beings that in some way participate in putting forth his work. Often these are called "angels" but that same word is often translated "god" in the scriptures (little "g"). Of course we don't worship these beings, and regarding anything more specific than this Mormon doctrine is certainly less than explicit.

gdavies- Let me clarify my understanding of what you just stated. Mormons worship "God" (big G). So naturally I’m assuming you mean "Heavenly Father". But Mormons also worship Yeshua - is He also viewed as "God" (big G)? But since you don’t submit to a possible "triune" nature, Jesus and Heavenly Father are two distinct, different beings. So If they’re two separate beings with Jesus as the lesser (unequal to His Father), doesn’t the worship of Jesus cross the line as polytheistic? Consider Isaiah 44:6 ..."Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel...beside me there is no God"? Please tell me, how does that fit into Mormon theology ?Mmirarchi 18:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't expect a specific reply to any of the things I've mentioned above, but perhaps it has helped a little (or at least been interesting) to get an insiders view on the doctrines of Mormonism and to point out that not all doctrine is quite as simple or cut and dried as it has been made to appear, and that woeful misrepresentations pitted into simplifications are often the norm rather than the exception in relation to Mormon theology. What it really comes down to is whether what Joseph Smith claimed was true. It's impossible to take a line by line doctrinal/theological/philosophical comparison of religions and reach a correct conclusion, because as humans we are fallible. Because of this fact, God has provided us with a way to judge truth and to be assured in our decisions (the Holy Spirit). If Joseph Smith was telling the truth, if the Book of Mormon really is the word of God and an actual ancient history, than all of these other theological questions are really irrelevant. I believe that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, and that therefore the church that was restored through Joseph Smith is really God's church restored again in the fulness of times. That is the real question, because the LDS church isn't like other Christian churches. Either Joseph Smith was a liar, the Book of Mormon is a fake, and all Latter-day Saints are deluded and wrong, or Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and the LDS church is his only approved church with the priesthood and authority to act in His name. This monumental question is what separates us from the "mainstream" and is the real reason that we will never become part of it. gdavies 01:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that Christianity was considered a Jewish sect at the time of the apostles. As you no doubt already know, one of the debates when Paul began to offer Christianity to the Gentiles is if the converts had to become Jewish in order to become Christian. The end result was that converts should abstain from certain pagan practices, but were not required to take upon themselves the entire Mosaic law. That is not to say, however, that the co-existence of Jews and Christians was always amicable. Certainly the early history of Saul/Paul indicates that many of the Jewish leaders perceived Christianity as a heresy.

As I understand it, the separation came during the second Jewish revolt, led by Bar Kokhba. Christians and Jews worked together until some people began calling him the Messiah. As soon as that happened, the Christian sect (who believed that the Messiah had already come in the form of Jesus) separated themselves from the rest of the Jewish sects. So, depending on your perspective, either Christianity separated from Judaism or Judaism separated from Christianity.

Unlike most other Christian religions, Mormonism still maintains that the Hebrews (not just the Jews) are the covenant people. There is a passage in the Book of Mormon where God chides Christians that they claim to have a Bible but try to deny that it came from the Jews. (See 2 Ne. 29: 3-4, 6, 10) Mormons have great respect for the Jewish religion and believe that we have become adopted members of the covenant people. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 19:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - Thanks for your post. Your history is correct and impressive (most folks don’t know about Bar Kokhba). I agree there was a separation that developed between Gentile Christians and Messianic Jews at some point. We even see that in some regards today. I’m still inclined to believe that the Gentile Christians of the 1st century followed the example of Judaism as a benchmark (since the Messiah came from the Jews). Therefore I'm persuaded to believe the teachings of Judaism had a "special truth" among early Christians. Good post. Thanks.Mmirarchi 18:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, one of the things that attracted me to the Mormon Church was that it reminded me so much of Judaism. I noticed you were asking questions about the Apostasy elsewhere. I know that some Mormons think the scriptures have changed, but I don't. The apostasy (IMHO) was more a change in the interpretation of the scriptures rather than changing the actual text. I think that much of that was the result of the Greek philosophers who kept changing doctrine based on their thought process. As a result, Christianity changed from an eastern style philosophy to a western style philosophy. (The Trinity is a good example.) That is what I think caused the apostasy. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 02:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - Interesting. I also believe "Christianity" has evolved from its Judaic origins into the Globalized "Western Church" it is today. That's not to say the evolution was "Apostic" by definition, I simply mean to suggest that the idea's and concepts governing the Christian Church have had growing pangs over the course of 2000 years. That's primarily why I think this forum is beneficial. It allows us to review some topics that we've simply grown up with (in our western society) and re-evaluate them in light of our religious origins. Indeed, the Trinitarian concept is hard to grasp - but then again, if we could figure out God He wouldn’t be big enough for our worship. On the other hand, perhaps the Greeks did try to reconcile an unfathomable doctrine. However, I do believe a "Tri-unity” concept is taught in the Bible (i.e. Yeshua is God, The Father is God, the Spirit is God - But we serve only One God). And since we both agree that Scripture wasn’t changed or "horribly corrupted", it obligates us to ask, "Are my leaders interpreting this stuff correctly"? Good points. Thanks again. Feel free to invite others to our forum and build on our discussion... Mmirarchi 18:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

One of the most interesting things you may find in the Book of Mormon is its constant references to Jewish beliefs. The time span it covers (600 BC - 400 AD) fills the gap of time between Old and New Testaments, and describes the Transition which Americans following the Law of Moses went through in preparation for, and after the coming of, Jesus Christ to them. The book of First Nephi and Third Nephi, as well as Mosiah from about chapters 11-16, deal with this directly, but the whole book discusses it at some length. Please also see some of my comments to your questions below. Wrad 23:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

'I have studied a fairly interesting chain of scriptures that can help us interpret the belief mormons have of God (the father) and God (the son). I have served a mission for the "Mormon" church and had to answer this question a lot, specifically to the Jehovah's Witnesses (because of their belief that Jehovah is "God Almighty" (The father). The Scriptures are as follows... Psalms 83:18; Phillip 2:9; Isaiah 43:11; Matthew 1:21; Acts 4:11; Isaiah 40:3; John 1:19-24. Jehovah, according to mormon doctrine is Jesus Christ, the son of God. We do believe that they are 3 different people. Jehovah was the ONLY God of the Isrealites. That was a commandment that he gave unto them. Often we hear about the 10 commandments that Moses recieved at Mt. Sanai and there are many that know them by heart. One of the first commandments that they "shall have no other God BEFORE" him. Now there are a million ways to interpret this scripture and I am only suggesting my point of view =D. Perhaps there ARE other gods? The Egyptians didn't just pull that idea out of nowhere... One cannot, logically, overlook the testimony of Stephen as he gazed into heaven "filled with the holy ghost" and saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God (Acts 7: 55-56). The children of Isreal understood that other gods do, in fact, exist. They only openly wrote about the God of Isreal, YHWH. As has been mentioned before, there are a million different interpretations of the Bible in the world and I am aware that my own is among the millions. Although Christ did not come to the earth to "make a church", the organization that he described while here was under a system of revelation (by authority) and not of interpretation. That is a fact that is un-deniable to anyone who has read the bible (Eph 2:20; 1 Cor 2:9-16; John 14:26) (Hebrews 7-Authority).--Mexiswenson 23:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Shema Isreal (שמע ישראל )

Deuteronomy 6:4, often called the Shema, is one of the most revered verses in Judaism. In this passage, the phrase “One Lord” is rendered "Adonai Echad" in Hebrew. "Echad" is a Hebrew word that's often used to identify a compound unity. Consider Genesis 2:24, “…The two shall become one [Echad] flesh. Most "Christians" don't realize that in the Shema, Moses referred to the compound nature of God. Mmirarchi 18:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You have asked a great deal, but I will focus now on one thing; Mmirachi, are you proposing that the unity of God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ is analogous to the one flesh of created by a man uniting with a woman as discussed in Gen. 2:24? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

--Storm Rider, No, Im simply addressing the vocabulary of Hebrew in the Shema. Im showing that "Echad" means "One" in english but in Hebrew it can literally mean a compound unity -as with the example of marriage described by Genesis. "One and only" (i.e. a single person) would be rendered "Yachiyd" in Hebrew. So why would Moses write the Ancient variant of Echad and not Yachiyd...again, who knows for sure. However, a good reference point for further study on the Father & Yeshua being One LORD - Adonai Echad Mmirarchi 18:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, I don't know if any of you are Star Trek fans, but Nimoy admitted that he got the Vulcan Salute from the Shema. When the rabbi recites that passage, he holds his hand in the form of the first letter of the prayer.

Mmirarchi, you might be interested to know that the Mormon view of the Godhead is quite similar to "Adonai Achad". We believe that the Achad spoken in both places talks about a oneness in purpose. In the same way that a perfect marriage are two people acting in unison and supporting one another (and therefore become one), the Godhead consists of three personages that are always working in absolute harmony. John was written in Greek, but I've always wondered if he would have used "achad" when Jesus prayed that he and his disciples would be one, even as he and the Father were one. Personally, I believe the concept of the Trinity was introduced by the Greek philosophers who couldn't accept the fact that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost couldn't work in perfect harmony unless they were the same individual. (But that's another discussion. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 19:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - Good Points, thanks! I actually considered your same proposal. Although the NT is written in Koine Greek, Jesus spoke in Aramaic / Hebrew. He may have indeed said "Echad" when he prayed for the unity of all believers. Who knows how many times he referred to the "oneness" he shared with the Father by using this powerful Hebrew word. Unfortunately as with most things, it's lost in translation so we can only make a logical assumption. Great post!

I remember I used to have much better eyes than I do now. I noticed that you spelled it "Echad", while I was used to spelling it "Achad". So, I got out my Hebrew Bible to check. It took me a while for my eyes to focus on the "much smaller than I remember" print, but sure enough, I have been spelling it wrong for many, many years. Boy, is my face red! ;^) While excavating my Bible, I came across the book "Bar-Kokhba" by Yagael Yadin, and chuckled over the way he presented his findings to President of Israel. ;^)

If you have some spare time and are bored, feel free to visit my web site. There is a link on my user page. Click on "Talks and Writings" and scroll down to some of the scripture study articles. You will probably get a lot more out of them than most. ;^) Feel free to suggest corrections; some most of my data is pretty old. Probably from before you were born. ;^) -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 22:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

wrp103 (Bill Pringle) Thanks, I'll look into that. Your among friends so don't worry about the "spelling". I'm impressed that you're as versed as you are.

Apostasy Reviewed

Now for the "Great Apostasy" issue. A good question was recently raised. How could there be 26,000 different Christian denominations if there was no "Apostasy" that created division? Well, as a Graduate student studying World Religions at a Major University, I can assure you there's not nearly that many. By definition, the term "Evangelical" represents a single sect of Christianity. Evangelicalism has over 30 million adherents. Do the math...the population of the earth isn’t large enough for 26K "different Aposate Christian faiths" (30,000,000 people X 26,000 sects = 936 Billion people).

Conclusively, Many counter-Christian groups cite an "Apostasy" but have no historical evidence to reconcile their claims. Honestly, besides assumptions that the Church was marred by "unholy doctrines", what evidence can be provided that any of it is true? And if it is true, why even research the Bible at all? Here's your chance to really impress me - Please show me the verses that have been corrupted along with evidence of such. You can't "pick & choose" what verses you want to keep and what verses you'd like to throw out. What's your opinion?

Mormonism is a belief, your question is self-serving. When was the apostacy? It was Friday, at 3:16 p.m., 102 AD. The answer is irrelevant.--Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Storm Rider - On the contrary, dates and events are important in regard to historical fact. For example, Protestants KNOW the events and circumstances surrounding Martin Luther's "reformation". Catholics KNOW the dates of the Inquisition (even though it's an embarassment they wanted to hide). Jews KNOW the dates in which the German Holocaust occured. None of these "historical" and monumentous events can be questioned because we have tangible facts surrounding them. The notion of a "Great Apostasy" is what I consider "romantic theology" - It sounds appealing but ultimately rests on its own merit. It's like telling a patient they have Cancer but not specifying what type or how to treat the disease...how is that helpful to anyone?

Mmirarchi - We believe that over time the teachings of men were interjected into the Gospel taught by Jesus Christ. More importantly, these doctrines became central to Christianity and those things that Jesus taught took a secondary position.

Storm Rider Yes, but the entire Gospel (not to mention religion) was controlled by the power of the Roman Catholic Church for 1500 years. Martin Luther made it available to the general public (and was condemned for it). Why did none of his "restorative" teachings elude to Mormonism? He despised the vile Catholic Church and refuted it's doctrine. Yet despite all this, not a single reformer changed or altered the Scriptures. They left it alone and never questioned the nature of God. Why do you suppose?

For example, the doctrine of the Trinity is not the litmus test for being called Christian by many Christian groups. The problem is that this issue was so secondary to other teachings it was never taught by Jesus Christ. Further, Jesus constantly taught repent and be baptized, but today baptism in many churches is a secondary issue that is little more than symbolic. However, Jesus taught it as central and He set the example by seeking it out for Himself while being perfect.--Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If I may interject... I think you're comparing apples and oranges here. What day did the Industrial Revolution start? There are certain "events" that we can point to, saying this factory was opened this day, or this instrument was invented in this year, but we can't really pinpoint a date. That's because the industrial revolution wasn't an "event" in the same way, but rather was a movement or series of events. What day was the catholic church started? Sure we can point to events, but just because we don't have a "date" that something happened (such as the industrial revolution, the civil rights movement, the reformation, etc.) that doesn't mean it didn't happen. If we knew the dates that all of the apostles were killed, that would still not tell us when the great apostasy actually happened, because its reality is not dependent on dates. gdavies 01:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

gdavies - Yes, not everything has an exact date, but I still feel the larger issue is being avoided! In what century did the "Apostasy" begin? The 1st? The end of the 2nd? Maybe the 5th? Honestly, how vague and unsupportive can we get? Let me ask the question another way...if the "Apostacy" was on trial, how would you aurgue your claim in a court of law? What supportive evidence could you provide the jury that would demand a "guilty" verdict? Granted, many things we take on faith, but irrevocably believing the "Apostasy happened" is blind faith. It's a huge issue that destroys the conceptions rooted in 2,000 years of Church history - subsequently, facts can't be brushed aside.

In turn, many faith groups defending the lack of "Apostacy proof" like to point out the Exodus cant be "factually" proved either. True (in some regards), but we know historically & archeologically that the Jews were slaves to Pharaoh - no secret there. We know historically that somehow their slavery stopped suddenly. Moreover we know the Jews moved into Canaan around the same time the Bible says they did. Therefore, the events surrounding the Exodus lead us to believe the Biblical account occurred as described.

In reflecting on what I firmly believe was a general apostasy in the first few centuries after Christ's ministry, I think first on issues such as the councils at Nicea and other types of "compromise" as opposed to revelation. It seems that this period (however long a time span we'd like to cover after Christ) was markedly different than Old Testament and the apostolic period. Rather than receiving direct revelation as did the prophets previously, differing doctrines were reconciled without any real claim to divine guidance (no one prophet or religious leader said, "this is the nature of God"). Amos 3:7 says that God will "do nothing" unless he tells his "secret" unto his servants the prophets. There are certainly other concerns, such as the seniority of the apostles and the questions of Peter's succession that I don't really wish to delve into at this point, but to me the evidence is sufficient for a general apostasy. gdavies 06:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Storm Rider - In response to your previouse statement, I agree that Baptism is very important. However, for being so important it's interesting to note that Jesus Himself never baptized anyone. Not a single person. Double check your King James Bible again, you won't find one occurrence - I guarantee you. The Salvation Jesus provided seemingly flowed entirely from the Cross, not water. In turn, we see no evidence the thief crucified next to Christ was ever removed from the cross and Baptized after repenting. Nevertheless, Scripture still states he was promised Paradise at the side of Jesus.

Certainly the fact that something isn't mentioned in the four gospels doesn't mean it never happened. If you search your New testament, no where is it said that "Christ never baptised anyone," so by your own requirements your point is moot. Certainly evidence by omission is not evidence at all. gdavies 01:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

gdavies - Your points are well taken. However, I must correct your last proposal. Scripture does say that "Christ didn’t Baptize anyone". In the Gospel of John it's written, ...Though Jesus himself baptized not... (4:2 KJV). I thought it was relevant to our discussion since you drew attention to the fact.

I appreciate the clarification. Regardless of whether this statement meant for the specific time period (the beginning of his ministry) or as a general statement throughout his ministry, Baptism was still considered a major focus of His gospel and took up a significant amount of his disciples' time. gdavies 06:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Mmirarchi - Let's focus on what has become Orthodoxy. Ehrman and White, two among many academics who are non Mormon, now reveal how the first 300 years of Christianity was a disparate grouping of beliefs that focused on Jesus Christ; at best there was a proto-orthodoxy, but there was hardley "the" Christian Church. It took a pagan ruler, Constantine, to assemble men to vote on what is Christianity and what is true doctrine. Not one of those who attended professed to be a prophet or to be led by the Spirit; they all voted to state what is true. That process was never known in God's religion; it did not happen in the either the Old Testatment or the New..--Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Storm Rider - Your history is correct, but your interpretation may not be. Doesn’t the Spirit reveal all Truth to those who believe? "Prophets" were needed in the Old Testament because the Holy Spirit was NOT given to all believers yet. Only a select few (i.e. Prophets) could fellowship with God and speak for Him. However, after the administration of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, all believers are equally able to receive God's Word in a personal way. Read through the New Testament closely - you'll quickly find that I’m speaking truthfully. In turn, who’s to say that the Spirit didn’t lead the founders of the Christian Church? Look at Acts 1:26, you'll find that even the Apostles of Christ had to "cast lots" to decide who would take the place of Judas the betrayer.

Some interesting ideas regarding pentacost and the holy spirit, but obviously not supported by the old or new testament. gdavies 01:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

gdavies - Wow! Now that’s a rather bold statement if I've ever heard one! Can you support it? I have a few verses in my back pocket that I believe reconcile my point. Perhaps before I qoute them, you could find me Scriptural evidence that refutes my proposal? You seem convicted that my point falls terribly short of convincing, so by all means, I'm not above being proved wrong through Scripture. Specifically, what verses state that the Holy Spirit doesn’t reveal God's Truth and we still need “Prophets” as mediators? Im very interested to learn something today

I apologize for my brash phrasing, but I do believe that this is a conclusion that can't be unquestionably proved by scripture. (the conclusion I'm referring to is that prophets are no longer necessary) Certainly all truth is revealed through the Holy Spirit, but I believe this has occurred from the foundation of the earth, rather than just after Christ's ministry. One scripture that I interpret to mean that prophets have always been and will always be necessary when Christ's gospel is on the earth in its fulness is Amos 3:7 ("surely the Lord God will do nothing save he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets"). I think that God, who is unchangeable, will provide continuing revelation to those that follow him through his servants the prophets whenever the gospel is on the earth, and that the Holy Ghost will confirm the truth of their words to those who hear them. I have no desire to get into any kind of a scriptural contest with you, as I'm sure you know your way around the bible much better than I do (I'm only 18... cut me some slack :) ), but perhaps you can see my perspective on this point... gdavies 06:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Mmirarchi - We view all of these things as signs of the Apostacy. I am also just speaking off the top of my head without attempting to reference any of it, but it suffices for a beginning to this conversation. Now about math; logic is probably not the best tool to use in this discussion. You should probably review New edition of World Christian Encyclopedia, which tabulated 10,000 distinct religious groups, including 33,830 Christian denominations[1]. This makes my 26,000 number pale in comparaison; however, that is a neutral source..--Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Storm Rider - I've reviewed your source. I’m still going with the logic of my math I discussed at the top of this forum. Honestly, I think you may be taking the author of your source out of context. He isn’t saying we have 38,830 different types of Christianity or 38,830 different views about God. He's simply saying that within Christianity, styles of fellowship differ creating branches of the same faith. Subsequently, Orthodox Christianity can still be defined by ONE common religious belief. Differences immerge many times as a result of culture, demographics or geography. The world is a diverse place so styles of praise may be different. Some are more conservative, others more casual - I believe the same could be said for Mormonism.

Why would every sect of christianity have to have the same number of adherents as Evangelicalism in order to be counted? That doesn't really make sense to me... gdavies 01:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

gdavies - To better answer your question, I think "Christianity" as a whole needs to be viewed correctly. I’ll admit, my math is a stretch but it helps motivate my point. Like I stated to --Storm Rider, I don’t think anyone believes there’s 36,830 different kinds of "Christian". Likewise, even though Mormons may have several different "groups" within the LDS faith, we still view them all equally as "Mormons". The same go's for Christianity. Essentially, you have 2 distinct Christian groups - Catholics & Protestants (a far cry from 36,830). Within those two groups it's broken down further into various "styles" (i.e. Evangelical, Methodist, ect). No single group claims "exclusivity" to Truth, they all believe the same core principles. I think that's grossly misunderstood by faith groups outside the "mainstream". For example, a Mormon is a Mormon - whether or not the're ultra conservative or mildly liberal. Different believers may want to gather with likeminded congregations that are more comfortable or welcoming. Would that signal an Apostacy? Unless it taught a different Gospel, of course not. "Styles" or "practices of worship" rarely have an effect on the core principles of the faith - much less do they assert "Apostacy". Variations in practice doesn’t automatically mean division, at least in my opinion...

Agreeing with below, a minor point of clarification. I certainly don't consider the divisions within the LDS movement as similar to those within Christianity in general. In organization, doctrine and history they are often starkly contrasting. As to the divisions within Christiantiy, I think it all depends on your definition of "kinds of Christianity." Of course there's a common thread of Christian service, love, and brotherly kindness, a dependence on God and his atonement and a hope for an afterlife that tie all (or at least most...) of the 33,830 or how ever many sects there are together. As stated below, however, their doctrines, loyalties to leadership, or some other factor defer enough to consider themselves distinct from the other sects. One more note, Mormon congregations are divided geographically, which is a unique feature to most Christian churches. I guess this would make the "shopping for a congregation you fit into" idea less easy to carry out. Of course there are variances to some degree along cultural, social or national borders, but one evident and impressive feature (at least to myself...) of the LDS church is it's basic uniformity across the world. gdavies 06:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe the source is adequate and beyond reproach; there are more than 33,000 different Christian churches that all profess the same Jesus, but teach a different doctrine. If they did not teach something different, there would be no need for their existence. Each church emphasizes one thing or another. What is so surprising is that so few of them claim any type of authority to start a church; a man just felt "called" and viola, a church is born. Nothing remotely similar to what scripture teaches. Who can take this authority unto themselves? None, save those who were called as was Aaron. How was Aaron called?

--Storm Rider And that's fine, you’re entitled to your view and I respect that. I personally disagree with your proposal based on my above comments but that doesn’t make me correct either. It's simply my interpretation as you have your own. To answer your question, the Biblical Aaron (אַהֲרֹן) was the brother of Moses (מֹשֶׁה). He was initially delegated by YHWH to assist Moses because Moses tried to avoid his calling (see Exodus 4:13-15). Later as God re-established His covenant with Isreal, Aaron was the vessel in which YHWH established the Levitical Priesthood. But the Levitical Priesthood is no longer needed since through the Messiah, believers are full inheritors of the Priesthood - with Yeshua Himself as "Kohen Ha-Gadol" (כהן גדול) - the Greatest of Great High Priest. However, Im not sure what you're getting at. In turn, I guess I could ask you a simliar question. How was Joseph Smith called? How was his calling unique from previous Christian leaders? Can you prove to us he was a genuine Prophet of God like unto Moses? Mormons say they feel the Holy Spirit's burning that they're correct. Non-Mormons feel that same burning that they’re wrong. So who has heartburn and who really has the Spirit? Passion & conviction isn't unique to Mormonism. 16:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Quick point of clarification for my benefit. I hear this idea a lot that authority (or even the priesthood) is attained by readers of the Bible, and that the priesthood is no longer necessary. Is there a specific scriptural justification for this idea that is generally used? When exactly did this happen (I mean the "fulfillment" of the levitical priesthood, if you will)? gdavies 06:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I know that one reference used is in Hebrews, when Christ is described as the great high priest. This is interpreted by some to mean that he was the last, and that there is no more need for them. Christ can do all of that without a priest. Mormons, however would interpret it differently, as greatest doesn't necessarily mean last. (I may not be representing their view well, here). Wrad 06:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

gdavies & Wrad, I appreciate your responses. I hope I can help clarify your questions. Without getting too in depth, let me try to summarize in general terms. In the Old Testament, the Levitical Priesthood was a special office held by the Levites. The Levite Priest were the only ones allowed to intercede for the people on behalf of YHWH. They were the only ones approved by YHWH to enter into the Most Holy place and offer the blood of the sacrificial lambs on the alter. For centuries this is how the Israelites atoned for sin. Here's the important part; only the High Priest – a man selected by God – could enter past the temple curtain and approach the room in which the presence of God dwelt (Hebrews 9:7).

Here’s the parallel most people overlook. When the Messiah was crucified, the Gospels reported that “…the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom… (Matthew 27:51)”. Keep in mind, to a Jewish audience, this was momentous! Through the Sacrifice of Yeshua, the Lamb of God, the dividing curtain was eliminated. Thus, the need for the Levites were eliminated. By removing the dividing curtain, God was effectually revoking the requirement of the "Jewish Priesthood" and replacing it with the Law of the New Covenant. YHWH would now allow all men access to the Most Holy Place (the presence of God Himself) through the Sacrifice of Yeshua. The Levites had no speacial office after the cross because sin could no longer be removed by the blood of goats & lambs. Moreover, since YHWH Himself created the Old Law, only someone with the same authority as YHWH could change / revoke it.

Therefore, since we all have access to the presence of God through Yeshua, the special office of “priest” is no longer needed (in the Jewish sense). In fact, Scripture tells us that ALL believers in Yeshua have the same privileges as the Levites. Consider 1 Peter 2:9, “…But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood…” And again, the Book of Revelation states, “…To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, and has made us to be a kingdom and priests…” Understanding the Jewish concept of Priesthood is essential to proper interpretation. This is where Judeo-Christians get the concept of “priesthood of all believers”. In turn, the Levitical office has been replaced with the New Covenant of Christ. So in order to serve YHWH today, we must approach Him with a proper understanding of Yeshua and His role in our redemption.

Yes, Mormons also consider that momentous. This is a much better explanation than my feeble attempt. Mormons, however, interpret the tearing curtain differently. Rather than saying that Priesthood is done away, they interpret it to mean that the priesthood is now more available to people. Before, there was only one high priest, although Moses originally gathered the people before the mount so that they could all receive the Priesthood (Exodus). The people weren't ready for it, though, and so God had to speak only through Moses and a few others. Christ's sacrifice made it so that anyone could be a priest or priestess by following him (and receiving it through designated means, i.e. laying on of hands), and thus anyone could enter his presence (or the holy of holies). I hope this makes sense, as I'm writing on the fly. Wrad 16:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrad - Yes, your responses make perfect sense. They reflect your interpretation clearly. Unfortunately, I think most people (even many Jews) have misunderstood the role of the “Old Priesthood” in Judaism. Honestly, who could blame them? We haven’t sacrificed animals at the Temple mount is Jerusalem since 70AD. That’s a long time to forget how the process actually worked (apart from studying the Torah, Talmud & Midrash).

We both acknowledge that the Levites were the only group of people that were consecrated to enter into the Most Holy place. In turn, their primary function was to act as mediators between the people and YHWH. But through the Messiah, the role of mediator is accomplished entirely in Yeshua. The author of 1 Timothy writes, “…For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (2:5, KJV). So if there is only one mediator (Yeshua), then priests are no longer needed to service the people. Through Yeshua, the Levitical Law is fulfilled in its entirety and only the Blood of God’s perfect Lamb can atone for sin. In effect, the tearing of the dividing curtain signaled the irrevocable & complete end of the “Old Priesthood”.

To a Jew, “priesthood” means two things; I can approach God with boldness like a Jewish Priest & I can enter into His presence like the Levites could. So through the Messiah, I have the title of “priest” but only in the Spiritual sense. In other words, we no longer have priestly duties (i.e. sacrificing lambs, temple worship, etc.). However, I am a "representative of YHWH" under the New Covenant - much like the Levitical "representatives" under the Old Covenant. This isn’t a title that any man could bestow on me or that I could earn through my own merit. The title is only available through the choice of YHWH (as with the Levites) & through the Grace of the Messiah (as revealed in Scripture).''

The Timothy scripture could be read that way, or it could mean that since we can all be priests and priestesses, we can all receive revelation from God without that single, designated priest. Under that interpretation, we could still have duties as representatives of God, however big or small. For example, Latter-day Saints take communion (they call it sacrament) every Sunday, which is blessed and prepared by the Priesthood. Those who take it reflect in a moment of silent communication between God and them, on what God has done for them. Wrad 19:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

LDS believe the Apostasy began shortly after the first Apostles called by Jesus Christ.

Also, when editing it is best to edit in chronological order. Unless one looks at the dates of the edits it is hard to tell that my edits and your answers where not the result of a conversation, but rather you going back and editing the format. I find it misleading and has the potential effect of misleading future readers. The great thing about Wikipedia is nothing is ever lost, the histories of edits are always retrievable (generally). --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

--Storm Rider Thanks for your comments. In effect, we are having a conversation. No one is writting an "essay" that must be read from top to bottom. Consequently, I personally prefer to edit my talk page accordingly. I feel it's more confusing for the average reader when our posts are limited to chronological order - especially with multiple visitors who add comments daily. And because I usually can’t respond to questions / comments immediately, it allows the reader to see the progression of our dialog in context. Not to mention that in enables me to converse with everyone more thoroughly and express my thoughts clearly on a given topic.

Nothing is intended to be misleading about this forum. If we spoke on my doorstep about these same issues, the same progression would take place. As I see comments in a post that I feel should be responded to, I add my dialog or retort with a question - just like we would in person. That’s why I try to keep my responses short. I hope that clarifies my motives. Thanks for your concern.

In regards to dates of the Apostasy, I would direct you to the Church's "History of the Church" preface, which explores this in depth, as does the book, "The Great Apostasy". These aren't necessarily church doctrine, but are pretty respected. As for Joseph Smith, why do want us to prove that he was a prophet? How many people demanded that Christ, or Elisha, or anyone else prove the same thing, while simultaneously ignoring what they taught? Christ asked people to do as he taught, in order to find out what he said was true, and if he was who he said he was, the Son of God (John 7:17). If you can "know them by their fruits" as Mark says, than why not try what Joseph Smith's fruits, or teachings, say, namely, to read the Book of Mormon and pray about it with faith and real intent, Asking God the Father in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, if it is true? That is where the "proof" lies. I can't give it to you, just as flesh and blood can't prove that Christ was the Son of God, only God can. Otherwise the knowledge is cheap, and based solely on faulty mortal logic. If you have questions about things, I can answer them, but I can't "prove" hardly anything, right down to the fact that God exists, without falling back on the idea that "I have felt." I just know it's true, because I asked God about it. I've felt him guiding me in my life. I have no proof that he is there, other than that, and I can't transfer that, other than to say that I know it's true. Wrad 23:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrad - Well said my friend. There are many things we simply can't prove through "logic". I agree 100%. Here's my dilemma - I've spoken with a few Saints in person and they all say the same general thing, "Read the Book of Mormon, pray about it earnestly, and the Holy Ghost will burn inside you with the truth". But what about those who already trust Yeshua for Salvation and haved placed thier hope in Him? Why do they have a similar burning that the doctrines of Mormonism are false? Who then has the Spirit of Truth & the Spirit of falsehood? I won’t argue for a split second that the words of Joseph Smith are not eloquent, empowered and thoughtful. That's not the issue. I have reservations to trust the Testament on a theological level. Why you may ask? Simple. I believe it changes the nature of God in many respects. I also believe the church (in general) teaches some things that are not truly compatible with Scripture. If they were - lets be honest - then the Bible would hold a higher position in the LDS Church. Its overall “lower priority” among the other inspired Mormon books alerts me that it's only cited when compatible with LDS doctrine. I understand the newer revelation is often clearer than the older. But we give the Old Testament as much credit as the New. Why is the Book of Mormon deemed more authoritative than Scripture - especially on points that disagree? I only ask because I don’t know. In turn, I sometimes feel that Mormons seem to "skirt around" the issue somewhat. Honestly, I could almost embrace some of the teachings. But The Church doesn’t assert many things - namely the eternal deity of the Messiah, the timeless origins of the Father and the concept that Yeshua is YHWH Elohim. That does it for me. I believe the Tanakh and the NT teach this (see “Jewish Questions for Mormons” above) and I can’t trade one reality for another.

So...you have read and prayed about the Book of Mormon and feel you have received a revelation from God personally to you that it is false? If I sound doubtful, please forgive me. I've just met so many people who read a lot (and are honestly very smart), but don't pray about these things, even when they say they have (I know because they admitted it later, close friends of mine). I personally know a person can't find any truth without God's help. I know I can't.

Also, about the Bible, the Mormon church holds the Bible in highest regard. Couldn't really get any higher. I don't really know where your idea that it has a "lower priority" comes from. Just because mormons have other scripture does not lower the Bible at all. In fact, the Book of Mormon itself states that it was written in order to support the Bible and to convince others that that Jewish work is true. If you were to go to a Mormon Sunday school on some upcoming Sunday, they would almost certainly teach largely from the New Testament. Contradictions arise from differing interpretations, not from the Bible itself. The Book or Mormon is really "more" authoritative than any other scripture, all of the LDS canon works together quite evenly.

One of the reasons Mormons talk about the book so much is because it is what makes them different. People don't understand what they believe or why they believe it until they've experienced the book. If we went and talked about the Bible only, we would get in a lot more arguments and come to a lot less understanding, because we would be ignoring a major issue. For example, when Paul taught the Jews the gospel, he used the Old Testament, of course, just as mormons use the Bible, but he also was very forward about his knowledge of Christ. A follower of the Law of Moses couldn't possibly understand fully Paul's inspired interpretation of the Old Testament without his testament of Jesus Christ. I'm sure, also, that he would have asked them to pray about it as well, as it is not flesh and blood that reveals such things to people.

Finally, I'm not sure I understand the last statement, as I'm not too familiar with Judaism. But I can say a bit about what we believe about the Old and New Testament, then maybe you can clarify what you mean in light of that, unless I luckily stumble across an answer for you in doing this. We believe that Jesus is the YHWH of the Old Testament, and that God the Father is the Elohim of that book. This may be old news to you, but humor me if it is. Wrad 19:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

For a half a second lets assume your correct. Then please explain to me what “New Covenant” from YHWH makes my Salvation dependent on Mormonism? Like the 1st century Apostles, my Salvation flows from the cross of Yeshua & my assurance comes from His bodily resurrection. Is some other additional teaching needed today? Just my thoughts...

I'm not sure if you are saying that the Mormon church teaches those things you list or not. Personally, I doubt if you would get much argument about them from many LDS, including me.

As for what about those who have read the Book of Mormon and haven't gotten a confirmation, the same can be said about the Tanakh or the NT. IMHO, there is only one way anyone can gain a testimony, and that is through the Holy Ghost. Somebody could study the Bible all they want and never get a testimony. Why? I don't know, but I try not to question how God runs the universe. ;^) As for why so many Mormons tell you to read the Book of Mormon to find out if it is true is probably because that is usually the key to conversion. Most converts, including myself, got here because we read the Book of Mormon and got a burning testimony that it was true. I went from an agnostic to a Mormon in a very short time, and it involved little or no logic (even though I was a math major, and insisted on logical explanations. ;^)

One thing that is crucial about reading the Book of Mormon to determine if it is right is to read it with an open mind. My own brother (who is sure I am going to hell because I'm a Mormon) claims he has read the Book of Mormon, prayed, and been told it is false. He eventually admitted that he hadn't read the whole book, and my guess is that his "prayer" was far from objective and open minded. IMHO, even the Holy Ghost can't "prove" anything; he can present us with the evidence, but it is up to us to accept the promptings. Consider what God had to do to wake up Saul and convert him. ;^)

As for why did God wait 1800 years to restore the church, see Isa 55:8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD." How long did God wait before he extended the gospel to the Gentiles? Why? I can't say. What I find particularly comforting about the LDS teachings is that all of the people who did not get a chance to accept the truth will still have a chance. Their decision, of course, is up to them, but they will not be shut out of heaven just because they were born in the wrong place and/or at the wrong time. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 19:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If you are looking to disprove Mormonism you will find what you are looking for. If you are looking for the plain and simple truth, you will realize that the LDS church is true. No other religion has resisted such hostiliy or misconceptions from all around. Guess what. If Mormons are worng, they will be exalted for being good Christians, believing in Christ and doing good works. If they are right, then they are exalted, while others may have quite a process to achieve the same goal. I'm not willing to take those chances. Plus, my Heavenly Father has revealed the truth unto me through the Holy Spirit. I cannot deny it, for I know it and God knows it. What you prove or disprove will never change the truth. I sure hope you disprove the LDS church. Then I will be blessed more for doing what is right. 208.127.96.81 05:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to pose an example to explain why so many Mormons are so eager to share what they know with the world. It all comes down to authority... First of all, I have heard more than a million people tell me that Salvation comes through faith in Christ and his atonement. Now lets just look at this example of scripture. I agree with that doctrine 100%. What a lot of people don't look at is that Jesus taught that we should BELIEVE in him to be saved... So why doesn't anyone BELIEVE what he says in John 3:5? You MUST be baptized to be saved. THAT is a DIRECT and un-deniable doctrine of Christ. Now that we have established that, who should baptise you? If you were God (example) would you give your "Power of Attorney" to whoever WANTS it? If you wanted to migrate to the United States, would you fill out papers to be a citizen of Canada? France? Russia? Here's a better example. We ALL know the laws of the road... If I pass a stop sign and a cop sees me, he is going to give me a ticket... and that ticket is VALID! But if I drive past a stop sign and the Ice-cream man sees me, what is he going to do? NOTHING! Because he can't! Now to apply this example logically to the scriptures... I am going to compare Christ and his ORDAINED apostles to cops (because a cop does not get his authority from an engineer or architecht, or simply because he knows the laws of the land... The apostles got their authority by the laying on of hands.) EVERYONE knows that the people (in general) rejected Christ and his teachings (might I add that it was the Jews who "understood" the scriptures that did it). Now, if they didn't accept Christ, they weren't going to accept his apostles... So they were all martyred. Around the beginning of the 2nd century the last apostle died. Now back to the example... If we take ALL of the cops off the earth, who is going to give us a ticket for passing a stop sign? Think about it... Nobody! So if we take all of the men having authority from God off of the earth, who is going to, or better yet, who CAN give us a VALID baptism? Nobody. Salvation comes through BELIEVING Christ. Baptism is essential. Have you been baptised by one holding an office in authority? And THAT is logic. --Mexiswenson 00:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

A Father of Flesh & Bones

Another topic has emerged. Mormon doctrine is very clear that the "Father has a body of flesh and bones, the Son also". Whereas mainstream Judeo-Christians tend to agree with the latter, few submit to the former. Can you add to our discussion and provide your insight? Do you believe the Father has a material body similar to our own? Why or why not? Keep in mind, many people view "flesh & bones" as a portrait of a God that can change & deteriorate - just like we can. What’s your opinion?

Fundamentally, Mormon doctrine (which I find strongly supported by the scriptures) holds that we are literally the spiritual children of God the Father, and that we are here to gain a body (we are created "in his image," and God the Father has an exalted body of Flesh and Bones) to become more like our Father, as well as to be tested/tried/proved to see if we will do all things that we are commanded to do. Does this concept seem heretical to other Christians? Of course, but certainly not on a purely scriptural basis.

gdavies Thanks. I would like to ask you however, where in Scripture does it teach that the Father has a body of "flesh & bones"? I know it's taught in the LDS Church, but building on our discussion that God cannot change, where is it found in the Bible? In John 4:24 (KJV) Jesus tells the Samaritan women at the well, "..God is a Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth. Again, when Simon Peter professed Jesus as the Messiah, the Lord said, "...Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. Where are your teachings reconciled in the earlier writings of Scripture?

The Simon Peter thing: Christ says flesh and blood, not flesh and bone, thus making that unapplicable in a mormon's eyes. A mortal is someone with flesh and blood, and a mortal did not reveal the truth to Peter, but God the Father, who was immortal--flesh and bone. Also, Mormons do not deny that God is a spirit, but do say that he is a spirit with a body of flesh and bones, which covers the other quote, as a person worshipping God "in spirit" would not have to leave his body to do so, just as for God to be a spirit does not require him to lack a body. A lot of Mormon belief in this manner centers on Christ's saying that if you have seen him, you have seen the Father, meaning in mormon theology that he looks like his Father, and has a body. A lot of the problem with understanding mormonism is not so much that it contradicts the bible, but that it interprets it pretty differently from other churches. In order to really understand the way mormons interpret scripture, I would recommend reading the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants. Both of these books will shed light on LDS scriptural interpretation. Wrad 23:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Consider this...Jesus (the Word) has a physical body in Scripture (John 1:14). Further, Scripture tells us that no one has ever seen God except Jesus (John 6:46). Jesus is also called the "Image of the invisible God" (Colossians 1:15). So who then did the Prophets see in the Old Testament when God appeared to them? If Scripture teaches that Jesus has a physical body and NO ONE has ever seen God the Father, could it be the Prophets saw the "Image of the invisible God" - a.k.a. Jesus?

Our concept of God is so different from others because it is not based on the Nicaean creed or other doctrinal "compromises" or a paranoid determination to avoid at all costs the appearance of polytheistic paganism or any other motivation, but instead by what we believe to be continuing revelation to modern-day prophets.

gdavies Very well, I accept that. But if you could show how my interpretation of God comes from a source outside Scripture - please do so. I would appreciate the growth. My views have been written about openly in the section “Jewish Questions for Mormons". Mmirarchi 16:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

See my above comments. Scriptures don't really teach that no man has seen God, but that only righteous men have. I believe the scripture you're quoting says no man has seen the father except those who have come down from heaven, and, in the mormon view, everyone has, as we lived there before we were born. Also, Mormons believe that the God prophets in the Old Testament saw was Jesus, so you seem to agree there. Moses describes him in Exodus 33 as having a face and feet. Stephen describes God in Acts 9 as having a right hand, just to name a few things. Again, this is just differences in interpretation, based on newly-revealed scripture in the mormon faith. In order to understand it, you have to look at each mormon sacred work in reference to the other, just as with any other religion. For example, in evangelical Christianity, Psalms can help you understand Isaiah and John. In Mormonism, this is also true, as well as the fact that the bible helps shed light on the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Mormon helps shed light on the Bible. You can't really separate the two, if you want to understand mormonism. Wrad 23:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This question is almost too easy... We will use the bible again. Luke 24:36-39. Christ invited his apostles to touch his resurrected body of flesh and bones. Immediately after this, he ascended to his father... The body of Christ is no longer here on earth, because he went, WITH HIS BODY, to his father. This is logical reasoning. There has never been a father without first being a son. There is no beginning and no end. And as long as there are fathers, there will be sons and vice versa. There is also a scripture in the Bible that talks about Christ doing what he has seen his father do (don't have my bible with me... sorry =D. I'll look for the citation). If Christ was the SON of God, then he was made in the image of God. If Christ has a body of flesh and bone then the Father must also have a body of flesh and bone. I would like to, once again, point out that Jehovah is Christ. That doctrine is essential to understand the nature of God. In Job 1:6 it speaks of Jehovah and the children of God (amongst which satan is found, might I add...). Why does it not say Jehovah and his children, then?

Scriptural proof

Mmirarchi - I notice a common theme among some of your questions - looking for scriptural "proof" of certain Mormon concepts. Perhaps, because of your background, I can illustrate a general principle that will help you understand where Mormons are coming from.

Most Christians know that the Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the dead, but that the Sadducees did not. Not all of them understand why, however, but I am fairly certain you do. I think the reasons apply to some of the Mormon beliefs. I will add some explanations for the other readers to understand better.

As you know, the Sadducees considered the Torah (the Five Books of Moses) alone to be scriptures. The Pharisees, however, considered the entire Tanakh (the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings). Angels and the resurrection of the dead are clearly discussed in the Nevi'im and Kethubi'im, but not in the Torah. As a result, the Sadducees denied that these were true principles. However, since the Pharisees accepted the additional scriptures, they believed these things to be true. Furthermore, because of their belief, they could identify places within the Torah that, while not clearly "proving" one of the concepts, were at least compatible with them. Such places could be viewed as a confirmation and/or validation of their beliefs. To the Sadducee, however, the concept could not be proven, and most likely they considered any such efforts an attempt to justify their view.

In the same way, Mormons believe in additional scriptures above and beyond the standard Christian Bible. In addition to the Book of Mormon, which has teachings quite similar to the Bible, there are the Doctrine and Covenants, which are a series of what Mormons believe are revelations from God, and the Pearl of Great Price which contains supposedly ancient scriptures (personally, while I believe these writings to be inspired, I think some of them are closer to Pseudopigrapha). These additional scriptures introduce new concepts that Mormons believe to be true. In many cases, Mormons can find passages in the Bible that are compatible with these beliefs, and in some cases can be interpreted (from a Mormon point of view) to actually teach these same beliefs. No doubt a non-Mormon Christian would have problems understanding how a Mormon can come to such a conclusion when the passage (in their mind) clearly teaches what they interpret the passage to mean.

So, for example, consider God having a body of flesh and bones. During the First Vision, Joseph Smith saw who he believed was Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. Both were viewed in the form of physical beings. In later revelations, this principle was revealed specifically (D&C 130: 22). As a result, Mormons believe that God has flesh and bones. Having accepted that teaching, they can look at passages where God is walking in the garden in the cool of the day, how Moses saw the back of God and spoke to him face to face, and how Stephen had a vision of Jesus sitting at the right hand of God, and say, "it says so clearly right here - God has a body." Mormons all nod their heads in agreement, and the other Christians can't understand how Mormons get there from those same passages.

Another example is where Mormons and other Christians can use the same scripture to "prove" opposing viewpoints. We discussed John 17 before, where Jesus prays that his disciples would be one with him as Jesus is one with the Father. We mentioned how this passage is reminiscent of the compound oneness of "echad". I read John 17 and it confirms to me that the Godhead consists of three personages working in perfect union and harmony. Other Christians read the same scripture, and feel it confirms their belief in the Trinity. The reason for this (IMHO) is the each of us have a preconceived notion of what we will find, and as a result the same passage of scripture can be used to confirm totally opposite viewpoints.

I hope this helps you understand how Mormons can come up with such "wacky" ideas. ;^) I also hope you don't mind me starting a new topic on your talk page, and rambling on like this. I don't often get a chance to discuss Judaism and Christianity with the same person. ;^) -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 16:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - Thank you for your comments. I don't mind starting a new topic at all. Let me review the posts that were added this week and I'll respond to everyone as I consider my responses. Great dialog. Thanks again!

Christianity and Mormonism

I'd like to join the conversation and add the following:

Some may say that Christians are in the same category as Mormons, but my opinion is that they aren't. Some reasons being that they believe that they can baptize their long dead ancestors, I believe that Their ancestor would've had to make the decision must be made by his or her own self, not by a desendent. Secondly, I think I'm not sure if they think this but, they think that after Christ comes they become...gods!? There is only one God, YHWH(Yahweh), and no one be above or beside him. If I said something factually incorrect, please let me know.--Philip Auguste 00:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I see you took several tries to enter the above. Avoid indenting text with spaces unless you want it to stand out, like an example. Second, remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~)

As for what you said, it is basically correct, however it has little, if anything to do with the question if Mormons are Christian. Such issues can determine if Mormons are traditional protestant Christians (which we aren't), but the main criteria for someone being a Christian is belief that Jesus is the Christ or Messiah.

Also, there are biblical references for both baptism for the dead (1 Cor 15:9) and eternal progression - where people can become gods (John 10:34-35, Ps 82:6). Mormons don't believe we can attain the same status as Heavenly Father or even Jesus Christ - they too will continue to progress so that they will always be ahead of us. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 04:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

(I just don't want you to be offended if you misinterperpt my attitude. I am not trying to be rude or be lofty.)

In 1 Cor 15:9 says nothing about baptism for the dead and ternal progression it says, "For Iam the least of the apostles nd do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I Persecuted the church of God". As for John 10:34-35; 1st of all Christ was clarifying who he was because the Jews wanted to stone him for saying he is the Son of God, and it was a direct quote from psalms 82:6 when God was REFERRING to the rulers and judges of Israel. And he goes on to saythat we are SONS of the most high God, and we will die like mere men. Gods don't die, men do. When referred to in Ps. 58:1 'gods' can also be interperted as 'rulers'. And many rulers enjoyed having the title of 'god', take the Ancient Roman Emperors and Babylonian Kings for example. They had themselves worshipped and sacrifes made to them.

Now, my questions: Do Mormons believe in the mercy of God, like Christ reason for Crucifixion? What do Mormons.... think of JWs? An odd question I know. Thats it until you respond, I guess.--Philip Auguste 06:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Sir Philip

My typo. I meant 1 Cor 15:29 (my fingers were asleep. ;^) - (BTW, the convention is to indent each conversation by adding one additional colon at the start of each line. I changed your entry to fit this convention.)

You will find that many people have many different interpretations of what the scriptures "mean", which is how we ended up with so many Christian religions, most (if not all) believing that they are correct.

Mormons believe in the mercy of God. There is an excellent parable about mercy and justice that you can find on several Mormon sites about a man who takes out a loan that he can't repay. See here for one telling of it.

Most Mormons don't have any official opinions on any specific religions. While I was growing up, one of my best friends was a Jehovah's Witness. One of my wife's aunt was one as well. In general, we believe that God loves all his children, and we should also. Some are harder to love than others, of course, but that usually isn't because of religion. ;^) -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 13:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

So you know 1 Cor 15:29? The verse you were talking about. Paul was talking about the pagan practices were pagans baptized the dead, the point he was making was when you are baptized you may die but your soul lives on. Baptism of the dead was never a christian practice. And about God's mercy, Christians believe the same thing and are taught the same about his love(of coarse you probably knew that and Im just rambling on :0). And two more questions, how does a man convert to Mormonism? Converts to Christianity pray the sinners prayer and get baptized, but what do you guys do? Secondly,Do you have pastor, priest, or what to conduct your servces? --Philip Auguste 21:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

As I've said before, different people will interpret the scriptures differently. In the Catholic Bible (Vulgate), there is a footnote that claimed that some Christians baptized for the dead, but I'm not aware of any mention of pagans.

Actually, there are many Christian religions that don't involve baptism. For example, for Unitarian Churches, you only need to sign a book indicating you want to join. Many involve some kind of interview, but some believe they simply need to accept Jesus as their savior and they are saved.

As for Mormons, you would probably study the doctrines and attend meetings until you decide you want to join. You would then go through a couple of interviews to determine if you are sincere and understand what you are getting into, and then be baptized, demonstrate your continued commitment, and finally be confirmed a member of the Church. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 04:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Pringle. Just want to add: You say "Baptism of the dead was never a christian practice." This isn't really true. See, as a small example, this link. Some Catholic Cathedrals even have baptismal fonts with the words "for the dead" written over them. It used to be practiced by Christians, but was stopped when revelation through prophets ceased. Paul is talking to Christians when he talked about such baptisms. We know what we know about baptisms for the dead today as mormons because revelation through prophets has begun again, through Joseph Smith, who was taught by the Lord how to perform the ordinance as it had been in early days, as well as its importance in bringing people to Christ who didn't have a chance to come to him while they were alive. Wrad 04:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrad & wrp103 (Bill Pringle), Without digressing too much further on the subject, I’m surprised to hear the practice of “baptism for the dead” being reconciled by referring to Catholic rituals from the middle ages. Let me explain what I mean. First off, I was under the impression (by speaking to the LDS community) that a great Apostasy swept through the early church after the first Apostles. Consequently, since the Roman Catholic Church was the embodiment of Christian religion after 300 AD, I’m assuming the “Apostasy” festered within Catholicism (as per the Mormon view). Although “mainstream Christianity” doesn’t submit to the Apostasy notion, Mormon doctrine evidently does. So why would any Mormon defend baptizing the dead by providing evidence that “early Christians” (namely Catholics) practiced the concept? Why would the Mormon Church attempt to reconcile ANY of their practices based on the prior practices of a so called “Apostic” faith group? Mmirarchi 20:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually Wrad, my Aunt was BORN and RAISED a Mormon. About 2 decades ago she converted to protestant christianity. And has a Mormon Family! This is a big source for my conversation, not totally but alot of it is.Philip Auguste 21:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Philip Auguste

I'm not sure I understand what this has to do with what I said. Could you restate? Wrad 04:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Who? Me Philip Auguste or Mmirarchi? Sorry For answereing 26 day after you asked.--Philip Auguste 18:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Mormons believe that Jesus is the son of God right?--Philip Auguste 21:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Philip Auguste

I suggest that you read some articles to learn more. I would start with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and then read the various detailed articles in the areas of interest to you. It seems you have a very limited understanding of Mormons, and I suspect you will learn a lot more in a lot less time than this question and answer format. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 22:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as my opinion about salvation goes(just to add on to conversation), I believe that a man must be alive to accept Christ as savior and he/she is saved. I believe baptisim is just a sign of belief. And like Christ says if you love him you will obey his commands. That is all I wanted to say for now.--Philip Auguste 01:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Mmirarchi - I wasn't trying to reconcile Baptism of the Dead with anything. A claim was made that the practice was of pagan origin, and never practiced by Christians. Back when I was a Catholic, I recall the footnote I mentioned. According to the footnote, some early Christians (what we would now call Catholics) did practice baptism for the dead. There are some Mormons that point to this as evidence of another "restoration" of the original teachings of Christ. That may or may not have been the case, but the claim that it was never a Christian practice seems dubious. Since the Mormon claim of apostasy is based on early practices that were later distorted, suppressed, etc. evidence of such an early practice would give weight to the apostasy theory. Nice to have you back, BTW. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 02:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

wrp103 (Bill Pringle), Thanks. I look forward to talking with everyone further. I'm glad the conversation has continued in my abscence. I'll have some more dialog ready soon. Until then, Shalom...Mmirarchi 19:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been gone for ALONG time, sorry. You often say, speaking to Bill, that people interperpt the scriptures differently. As true as this is, you can't keep saying this. Otherwise we won't get anywhere in this disscussion.Its nice to be back--Philip Auguste 04:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Having gone from Catholic to agnostic to Mormon, I find that I have interpreted the same scriptures a number of different ways. Each time, however, my interpretation seemed quite logical. While I am sure that I am correct in my current interpretation of scriptures, I acknowledge that others can interpret them differently. Much depends on a series of assumptions that are based on faith. This means that you can't expect to logically "prove" that anyone's belief system is true or false.

It was clear that the person who started this thread had a limited exposure to different viewpoints. They presented their beliefs as facts, and some were rather fringe beliefs. I was trying to politely tell them that I didn't agree with their interpretation, but understood how they might think their interpretation was the correct one. I respectively disagreed with them, however.

I am not trying to prove anything during this discussion. I am merely explaining what I believe and how I interpret things. Everyone else is free to hold different views. I would be very surprised if discussions like this will cause anyone to change their mind, but I would hope it would help somebody realize that other viewpoints aren't as incredible or far-fetched as they might have thought. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 05:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I know that I have had limited exposure to different view points that is one of the reasons why I started this thread in the first place. And to me, and your beliefs to you, my beliefs are fact to me that is why I stated them as I did. I hope I didn't offend you in any way. If I did I am terribly sorry.--Philip Auguste 05:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Not in the least. I phrased it the way I did to encourage you to expand your information about beliefs. I don't agree, however, with your comment about beliefs being facts. There are a number of things that I firmly belief to be true, but I also recognize that there are perfectly reasonable alternate interpretations of the "facts." We each have a number of basic beliefs that color our interpretation of our experiences and observations. For example, both Mormons and Christians point to John 17 to "prove" their beliefs in the Godhead / Trinity. We both read the same words, but what we hear is what we already believe. I think I'm right, but I also realize that you think the same thing. Furthermore, I don't believe there is any way that either of us can "prove" our point to the other, because logic has little (or nothing) to do with it. That is why I try to limit my comments to what I (or Mormons in general) believe, trying to limit comments to why I believe it without trying to suggest that any alternative interpretations are false. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 16:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well spoken, indeed. I do try to learn about other peoples opinions and my own beliefs. But as far as going to "prove" ones belief, I do belive one can do that otherwise there wouldn't be converts to religions. Of coarse tho', dosen't the Mormon church tell converts to pray instead of "prove" their beliefs. Because I know that my church uses scripture(and prayer) to prove their beliefs. P.S. iam well aware of the fact that iam using the word 'proves' alot as a way of differentianting(SP?) Protestant Christianity and Mormonism.

Im going to ask questions again now such as does John or any other of the Apostles say anything that would support Mormonism's claim that you can become a god? And If there are more gods then that makes Mormonism polytheistic. Also another 2 reasons I believe baptism after you die is wrong is because(a)Romans 10:9 says if you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord then you'll be saved. You can't do that when your dead because (b)you know the story of the poor man goes to heaven and the rich guy goes to hell. He asks for a drip water from lazarus and is denied by Abraham. The goes on to ask Abraham if Lazarus could warn his friends and family about hell and Abraham replies,"they have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them. I think he would have mentioned being baptised for the dead if thats what he thought was right.And read Romans 10:19-31 for more of the story. To me that proves my point, make your opinions tho'. But now That I think on it more,it may or may not save you. If it works then you can get a kudos from Jesus Christ on Judgement day. I guess there is no harm doing on second thought. --Philip Auguste 04:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm really not interested in trying to "prove" that I'm right. We are talking about matters of faith, so logical arguments are usually pointless. Many different religions use the exact same Bible to prove their own distinct beliefs. I am quite comfortable that my interpretation of the scriptures are correct, and I'm sure you feel the same way. I would be glad to explain what we (or at least I) believe about various aspects, but arguing over which is correct is pointless. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 23:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand, never mind the proves, i won't say it anymore. I see your point. Im sorry.I understand Im ignorant about your beliefs and thnat I didn't get what you were trying to say before. Sorry. But I see that you were a former catholic. What made decide it wasn't the right religion?--Philip Auguste 00:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Saved is an interesting word... saved from WHAT, first of all... there are different meanings to the word SAVED... Saved from physical death or spiritual death, for example? Because it is true that EVERYONE will be saved... from PHYSICAL death... But Christ distinctly taught that being born of "water and of the spirit" is a requisit for inheriting the kingdom of God. (John 3:5). Let us not replace the teachings of Christ with those of Paul. Rather, let us see the big picture... Faith, Repentance, Baptism, Recieving the gift of the Holy Ghost, and Enduring to the end are the requisites for Eternal life. One must see ALL of the scriptures... not just fractions. I agree with Pringle in the "proving" point in that it is pointless... All I wish to do is see the big picture.--Mexiswenson 00:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Im not sure I understand. Can you please simplify what you mean? I understand that trying to prove that point is pointless, now.--Philip Auguste 18:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Mexiswenson Shalom my friend. Welcome to our discussion. From the sound of your dialog, I'm assuming you're not a follower of Mormonism - is that correct? In fact, if I was to place a "title" on you (although I don’t like using labels), I would assume you're either Catholic, Seventh Day Adventist or Church of Christ -am I close? All of which I consider Orthodox Christian, but your mention of Baptism as necessary for Salvation limits you to certain worship styles (namely the three I mentioned). Baptism isn't recognized as an essential act (more so symbolic) within Judaism & Evangelical Christianity.

As a brother in the Messiah, pointing fingers at opposing worship styles is not what we're called to do. So I would never do that. However, I would remind you of the repentant thief that was crucified next to Yeshua. He simply believed and was saved - no baptism or religion, just acceptance. If I was a non-believer and was hit by a car dying in the street with moments to live, how could I be saved? Since we never know the hour of our death, it’s a pretty valid question. So in my opinion, all we really have is the acceptance part - the rest is an act of obedience that we’re called carry out. In effect, that's the provision of the cross, "...Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God...(John 1:12). Mmirarchi 17:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

are you implying that Mormons do not require baptism. Reading what Mexiswenson wrote, it is clear he/she is LDS. By practically quoting Article of Faith #4 "We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost." As to your answer as to what happens if you are hit by a car. Well, LDS believe that after death ones spirit goes to "Spirit Prison" and you are preached to. If you accept Jesus as your savior, you may be saved. Baptism is still required though. That is why Mormons perform baptism for the dead. This allows proxy baptism for those who could not (note, I didn't say would not) be baptized in this life. Your salvation is dependent on you. If you die, you will still have the same attitudes and feelings as you did when alive, so if you reject baptism in this life, you will most likely reject it in the next. Since we have no way of knowing the status of your acceptance, Mormons strive to baptize any and all people we can, and let the recipient decide for themselves. So, count Mormoons in the group who reqire baptism. Bytebear 23:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Bytebear Thanks for your reply. In fact, it was difficult to identify Mexiswenson's doctrinal stance. His/her post are somewhat "all over the map". Whereas one post sounded definitively orthodox, another sounded LDS or even slightly Jehovah's Witness (in my opinion).

Anyways, in regards to baptism for the dead and the Mormon view of the afterlife...what a comforting idea. To believe that we have more than one chance to get our salvation right. To accept the possibility that eternal punishment can be avoided by a mystical conversion on the other side. How reassuring it must be that even if a human is a confused Buddhist in this life, they can hear the gospel and be converted by "spirit missionaries" in the next world. Why worry about our life then? Hypothetically, If I knew deep down that Mormonism was correct but I felt lazy today, I could be saved tomorrow. So although God gave us the sacrifice of Jesus, His provision is pretty flexible in your view. I’m sorry but I'm not sure I accept that. Can you provide me a verse in the Bible where Scripture coincides with the Book of Mormon is this regard? If so, why does the Book of Hebrews proclaim, "Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment...(9:27). Again, what will happen to those who are still living and haven’t been saved when Christ returns in Great Power & Glory to judge the living and the dead? If God is just and fair, why would those who are alive at His coming be judged differently than those who died and had a "second chance"? Mmirarchi 19:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You bring up some very good points,and I think many Christians (although not taught) do believe in some kind of redemption after death, although Mormon's definiltely have a formal teaching and practices to reflect it. But certainly others will pray for those who have died for some kind of reconsiliation.

As to your point about judgement, I believe the point is that just as there is one time to die, there is also only one formal judgement. Mormons teach that receiveing the gospel, is like a light in the darkness and the trip back to God will be made that much easier with that light. Choosing to not accept that light or never receiving that light will simply make the voyage that much more difficult. But, eventually everyone will have that light given to them. But we are judged on what we do with that light, so the one who says "I felt lazy today, I could be saved tomorrow." will not be saved. It really comes to who we are when we meet Jesus at the judgement. Are we like him? Will he recognized us as his deciple? I will give you two scriptural concepts to ponder: Romans 14:11 "For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God." Mosiah 27:31 also reiterates the point " 31 Yea, every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess before him. Yea, even at the last day, when all men shall stand to be judged of him, then shall they confess that he is God; then shall they confess, who live without God in the world, that the judgment of an everlasting punishment is just upon them; and they shall quake, and tremble, and shrink beneath the glance of his eall-searching eye." (see also Isa. 45: 23) We will be judged not on faith, but with the sure knowledge that Jesus is the Christ. And yet, with that knowledge we will quake because we did not accept the light given to us (in this life or the next). Bytebear 21:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Bytebear Shalom my friend. Thanks again for your response. I created this dialog page just for this purpose. It allows us to discuss our faith on mutual terms. In so doing, I find many groups outside Evangelical Christianity get our beliefs somewhat confused (as evidenced by much of my dialog with other members). You mentioned that many Christians believe in some sort of redemption after death. Well, that's almost right. Actually, Jewish believers (which I represent here) and Protestant Christians have absolutely no belief in such redemption. You'll find that Catholics are among the only ones who very loosely teach that doctrine. And VERY loosely at that - most don’t submit to it at all. Which brings up my point...many Catholics no longer submit to the notion since it really cant be reconciled in Scripture. Check for yourself my friend. You'll find there isn’t a single verse in the text of the Bible that teaches about a "second chance" (to the best of my knowledge). Moreover, Yeshua (Jesus) never taught about it and the Apostles never added to His silence. In fact, Christ gave an example of a rich man who died and was consciously suffering after death in torment (see Luke 16:22-24). How many more examples are there where death is seen as permanent and our location depends on our belief here and now? The Bible also records,"...but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son" (John 3:18). Additionally, In Hebrew, the phrase "the name" in reference to the name of God's Son is rendered "HaShem". Hashem literally means "authority". In other words, those who do not accept the "authority" of Jesus in this life are condemned - pretty cut and dry. By reading through many of my posts (especially the last one at the bottom of this talk page), do you feel Mormons believe in the "Hashem" of Jesus as described by the Old Testament Prophets?Mmirarchi 03:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarity on the Jewish position. And I agree that other churches do not teach about a second salvation after death, and Mormons acutally believe the same thing, but allow for those who have no opportunity for baptism to have it by proxy. Otherwise, I can see no reason for Jesus to preach to the souls who died in the flood of Noah. I think the Bible is clear on that point, and Mormonism, along with the re-introduction on the practice of Baptism for the dead (also mentioned in the Bible, and acknowledged by historians as practiced by at least a minority of early Christians). Given that Biblical evidence, I see no reason to accept that after the death of Christ but before the resurrection, he established a missionary effort on the other side. This is how I can reconsile the Jewish position, because I don't believe the practice existed prior to that time, and I can understand the traditional position, because it was a new practice and perhaps not widely adopted, and eventually lost to Christianity. Bytebear 03:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

In The Beginning (בראשית)

As with Orthodox Judaism and Christianity, Mormon theology teaches that Almighty God created the Heavens and the Earth. However, Christians and Jews disagree with the LDS proposal that YHWH created the earth from “existing materials”. Judeo-Christians affirm that Elohim created (and still creates) all things without means or assistance. He alone is sovereign over all things and by Him everything is made – including “pre-existing matter” (John 1:3).

Consider the original Hebrew words of Genesis chapter one. “…the Earth was a formless void”.In Hebrew, the English words “formless” and “void” are translated “tohuw bohuw” from the Hebrew characters. In the ancient language, these two words mean somewhat more than the English text allows. In other words, it’s not really open to alternate interpretations. “Tohuw bohuw” literally means “Absolutely barren and void of all things” – including matter or pre-existing materials. So when Almighty God created the Heavens and the Earth, He created something from absolutely nothing. Your thoughts...Mmirarchi 00:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you translating the English into the Hebrew, or the other way around? If you start with the original Hebrew, you get something totally different. The original Hebrew indicates that the earth was, in fact, organized out of existing materials. The word for create in Hebrew, for example, strongly suggests an organization of things, not an appearance out of the void. That is at least what I've found. Wrad 01:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrad - Thanks for your reply my friend. To further address your question, when translated directly into English from the Hebrew text of the Torah, the words “formless void” are transliterated “tohuw bohuw” from the Hebrew characters. We're obligated to translate the Hebrew words into common English since the Hebrew words form the original passage. It would be irresponsible of us as stewards of God’s Word to identify the meaning of a passage without understanding the original language. Since Old Testament Scripture obviously wasn’t written in English originally, the Hebrew language (which is remarkably closer to the ancient meaning) must be referenced when we seek an accurate understanding of the text. So yes, the Hebrew words “tohuw bohuw” literally mean “Absolutely barren and void of all things”. Consequently, the latter translation of English must give way to the former meaning of the original Hebrew. Mmirarchi 17:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the word used for "create" isn't as clearly understood as some people would have you believe. I have heard 'experts' claim that the word clearly means "create out of nothing" and "organize". The reality is that the word only appears a few times in the Hebrew Bible, and God is always the subject. Therefore, all we can concluded from the current text is that "create" is something that is done by God. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 19:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

…wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - I agree with your last post. Indeed, God alone is the One who creates. Anyone who takes Scripture seriously is left with little choice but to assert that Almighty God was (and is) the creator of the Heavens and the Earth. We share a common belief on this point. However, I'm still wrestling with the concept of pre-existing materials. Please allow me to briefly explain what I mean. When I consider the LDS proposal, I keep running into the same unanswered question...Who formed these materials if not God? Are we to assume that these materials (however elemental & unorganized) pre-existed before Almighty God? If so, that seems to surely conflict with Scripture - especially John's Gospel where it clearly states that "all things were created by Him… (1:3)". Wouldn’t you suppose that "all things" literally means "everything"? If God didn’t create the pre-existing materials, why do you think Scripture states that He created "all things"? Mmirarchi 05:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It goes back to the meaning of "created" (bara'). If you believe creation was ex nihilo, then clearly there wasn't any material before the creation of the universe. If, however, you believe the Hebrew word for creation means to organize or put in order, then clearly there had to be material to organize into the universe. The scriptures you quote say that God created (out of nothing or organized) everything, which we all agree on. The difference of opinion is what exactly "created" means. If we look at Strong's definition (H1254), it is to create, shape, or form. That definition fits nicely with both of our interpretations. ;^) -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 15:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I was trying to say before. Create has two meanings in this situation. Also, of course the earth was a formless void before God created it, it wasn't there at all! That doesn't mean that the entire universe was a void. If created "all things" is seen in this way, then yes, he did create all things, organizing all of them from pre-existing materials. It's all how you look at it. Wrad 15:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, I a reading this and I am confused. "The Earth was a barren void". Void meaning "Absolutely barren and void of all things", but the Earth itself did exist. It was a thing. It just had nothing on it. It was barren and void of all things. The Earth existed, but the things on it did not. So how did they come to be on the Earth? I say the same way Adam was created. From the dust of the Earth. In other words, from existing materials. Bytebear 21:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeshua as Almighty God

Mormonism teaches that Yeshua obtained divinity and eventually reached equality with His Father. However, Orthodox Christians believe that Jesus has been Almighty God for all eternity. In fact, the prophet Isaiah called the Messiah "El Gibbor" (translated "Mighty God" in English) well before His incarnation (see Isaiah 9:6). Isaiah was a strict monotheist in the strongest Jewish sense. For him to say the Messiah was "Mighty God" was a claim that the Messiah was YHWH Elohim - the LORD God of Israel. Do Mormons see Jesus as the everlasting & eternal LORD God? If not, why do you suppose the prophet Isaiah saw Him that way? Mmirarchi 00:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Christ has always been God. No one but a God could do what he did while he was on earth. Even as a God, though, he submitted himself to the Father. This was his own choice, in order to save us. Wrad 01:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrad - My friend, in your above response, you mentioned that Yeshua was "a God", did I understand you correctly? Are we to assume that Yeshua is a divine being who's part of a collective of Gods? Albeit Mormonism teaches that Yeshua is "Almighty" but does it also teach that there are others beside Him who are also Almighty? If so, what’s your understanding of Isaiah 44:6 where the Prophet writes, "Thus saith the LORD [YHWH] the King of Israel... beside me there is no God. Mmirarchi 17:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is an official viewpoint on this matter, although many believe that Jesus attained perfection by fulfilling all that the Father gave him to do. IT is stated pretty clearly that Jesus was a man as well as a God, but exactly what that means is most likely a mystery to all of us. In Matt 5:48, Jesus says "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." In 3 Ne 12:48, which is the account in the Book of Mormon of Jesus visiting the Americas after his ascension into heaven, Jesus now says: "Therefore I would that ye should be perfect even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect." I have heard many use those two scriptures to support the view that he achieved perfection. Since Jesus still had his free agency (will), he could have chosen to not go through with his assignment. I believe that was highly unlikely, but still possible. Fortunately for all of us, he did what he was asked to do.

As for YHWH Elohim, most scriptures use one or the other term; the two don't appear together all that often. (The Documentary Hypothesis claims to explain why.) I think many tend to view YHWH as Jesus and Elohim as Heavenly Father. Remember that the Mormon view of the Godhead consists of three individuals who work in perfect unity, although Heavenly Father is clearly the person in charge, as Jesus said many times. IMHO, this is a hard concept, and I believe it was why early Christians (probably the Greek philosophers who converted to Christianity) devised the concept of the Trinity: if they weren't the same, there would have to be differences - which is sort of like trying to use finite math to work with infinity. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 02:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

God makes it pretty clear that he is made up of three distinct persons (John 17, for example) who are, in purpose, one God (3 Nephi 11, among other scriptures). There is no other God besides him. That's how we view that scripture. Wrad 15:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - Good to hear from you again my friend. I have a question for you regarding the Mormon view of the Godhead. Is it true that in order to obtain divinity, a spirit being must first walk in the flesh and prove themselves worthy? In other words, Mormonism teaches that both Jesus and His Father were once men as we are but obtained perfection and ultimately Godhood – is that correct. Subsequently, we as humans and spirit children of Heavenly Father are all given the same sort of opportunity. I understand that much. But what about the Holy Ghost? If the criteria for obtaining Godhood rest on incarnation and a “trial period in the flesh”, how is the Holy Spirit part of the Godhead? Please tell me, how did the Spirit obtain equality with Jesus and the Father if the Spirit never walked in the flesh as a man? Mmirarchi 18:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Beats the snot out of me! ;^) Seriously, you have put your finger on one of those mysteries within Mormon doctrine. I think this is one of those situations that is similar to apparent conflicts between science and religion. Mormons don't believe there can be any such conflict, and that if we ever encounter what we think is a conflict, then one of three things is true:

1. We don't understand the science correctly

2. We don't understand the religion ccrrectly

3. We don't understand either the religion or the science correctly.

As you deduced from my earlier comments, one of the ways to obtain perfection and godhood is to become a mortal with a physical body. I'm pretty sure that isn't the only way. For example, Mormons believe that YHWH usually refers to Jesus, which means that he was a God before he became mortal. Mormons also believe that YHWH/Jesus did the actual creation, under the direction of Elohim, which would imply that Jesus - at least - had a temporary/potential/whatever type of godhood status. (This is the gospel according to Bill Pringle, BTW! ;^)

The Holy Ghost has a unique responsibility among the Godhead. He is the one who, as a spirit, can be everywhere and communicates with everyone - even those who are unable to stand in the presence of Jesus and Heavenly Father. How did he get to be a God? My guess (repeat - guess) is the same way that Jesus became a God before becoming a man. Has the Holy Ghost reached perfection? I'm not sure, since I don't really know what "perfection" means. Will the Holy Ghost ever get a body? Again, I'm not sure. It doesn't keep my up at night; I'm content to have things to learn when I get to the other side. ;^) -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 19:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to say that Bill's response is about as close to the doctrine as we can get. We don't know much about the Holy Ghost, but we do know that Christ was a God before he was born, so the whole spirit question is kind of moot.

Wrad 15:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrad & wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - I can see your point. Since Jesus was already "a God" prior to his incarnation, then presumably the Holy Ghost could be as well (as per the LDS view). What burdens me is the equality that Mormons give the Holy Ghost with Jesus and the Father. Let me briefly explain my view using the LDS proposal... In order to achieve their supreme deity, both the Son and the Father walked in the flesh at one point and were proven worthy. According to Mormon doctrine (as I understand it), the Father & the Son through absolute perfection, obedience and righteousness, earned the right to become "Almighty God". So, since Yeshua had to earn equality with His Father, Yeshua must have been a "lesser god" in some respects until he was proven righteous through his mortal life - does that seem accurate so far?

Presumably, the Mormon doctrine is a double edged sword (so to speak). If Yeshua was a "lesser god" before His incarnation, then the Holy Ghost could still be a "lesser god" in some respects. However, if the Holy Ghost is equal to the Father without ever becoming mortal, then Yeshua must have also been equal before His incarnation - can you see my point? And if Yeshua was equal from the beginning, then the Father & the Son have always been One...Mmirarchi 17:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of speculation. I don't know if that's quite right though. Christ was different from the beginning. God knew that Christ would be faithful. It was just the way he had always been. Christ acknowledges that the Father is perfect in the Bible, while not applying the same to himself, so perhaps he was lesser in some things, but I don't know exactly what or if he actually was in anything less than an immortal, physical body. At other times he says that if you have seen him, you have seen the Father (in mormonism, this is taken to mean that they look alike, as well as that they are the same in purpose). I don't really know whether you could call Christ a "lesser God" at all in mormonism. I have only heard of him as a God who submitted to the Father's will in order to save and set an example for the human race, God's children. Again, with the Holy Ghost, so little is said about his origins and character in the scriptures that I really can't help you there. We do know that he is omniscient, like the Father and the Son. We also know that he testifies of truth, that he is the messenger of the Father and the Son, and that, while he is not omnipresent, his influence is widespread. Many of these characteristics bear striking similarities to the other members of the Godhead. Other statements would probably fall into the realm of speculation, rather than solid LDS doctrine. Wrad 17:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is difficult to use finite concepts when talking about the infinite. For example, I can prove that the number of points on one line segment is equal to, lesser than, and greater than the number of points on another line segment, regardless of their relative sizes. Quantum physics makes claims that seem to blur past, present, and future. When talking about infinity, normal comparisons don't hold. If you double infinity, you still have the same number - infinity! (You have to square infinity before you get something different.) Our thoughts are limited and time-based, whereas God is unlimited and is outside of time. The fact that Jesus attained perfection after his resurrection might simply be our way of understanding what happened. (I have trouble believing Heavenly Father was holding his breath to find out what Jesus would decide.) Even after his resurrection, Jesus spoke about "my Father and your Father" and "my God and your God." If the two operate in perfect harmony, what does it mean that one is a "lesser god"? My head is hurting, I'll have to stop now. ;^) -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 18:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Scripture chain! Psalms 83:18; Job 1:6; Phil 2:9; John 17:5,24; Acts 2:33; and finally... Emmanuel= "God with us".--Mexiswenson 00:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

YHWH יהוה

In response to the Mormon view that presents Yeshua as YHWH and Heavenly Father as Elohim, I have a Jewish response. Jews see these two names as synonymous. Let me briefly explain. YHWH (the tetragramaton), was the original Hebrew rendering of the English word “LORD” (all caps). Whereas “Elohim” is a Hebrew word that means “God”. In Jewish Scripture and Theology, when the God of Israel is called “Elohim”, it’s always understood to be YHWH. If you examine Exodus 3:15, you’d see what I mean, “…The LORD [YHWH] the God [Elohim] of your Fathers…has sent me to you.” In other words, this passage signifies that YHWH is the “Elohim” of His children.

You might also be interest to know that the word “Elohim” is a generic Hebrew name for any Deity (false or otherwise). In contrast, YHWH is the identifying name for Israel’s God. Consider Exodus 32:8 when Aaron fashioned the Golden Calf. He said, “This is your god [elohim] O Isreal who brought you out of Egypt.” Every time the word “god” is used in the Old Testament, it’s rendered “Elohim” (or some variant). Surely then, in a Scriptural context, the word “Elohim” is not specific to Heavenly Father. Whats your view...Mmirarchi 18:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC) ''

Very interesting. I don't think you could have explained it better. It only means the Father when it means the Father, otherwise it is just a word for God (or god). So the scripture The LORD [YHWH] the God [Elohim] of your Fathers... could mean God in the second sense, in the Mormon view. Wrad 18:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrad - Keep in mind however, I simply selected a random verse. In reading through the Old Testament, you won't find a single passage of Scripture where the word "LORD" (YHWH) isn’t referring to the God (Elohim) of Israel. In an age of pagan idols and false gods, the tetragramaton (or YHWH) identified the One true God worshipped by the Israelites. In other words, when a Hebrew spoke of "Elohim", they meant YHWH. To briefly emphasize my point, consider Exodus 6:2. The verse reads, "And God [Elohim] spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD [YHWH]." Subsequently, I'm not sure I understood your response. In your opinion, how could the above verses refer to "God in the second sense"? I simply don’t follow your proposal Mmirarchi 22:02, 22 July 2007

I thought that Elohim was the plural form, which would normally be translated "gods" except for those times when it clearly refers to the True God, rather than false gods.

True, Jews always assumed that there was only one God (as in the Shema). They also believed that the Messiah was to be a mortal hero who would save Israel from their enemies. Jesus challenged these ideas - first, by claiming that he was the Messiah and God. Furthermore, he claimed that not only was he God, but that there was another God - Heavenly Father. Those were two concepts that most Jews had trouble accepting, although many of the strongest Christians were Jewish (and continued to think of themselves as Jews, as we have discussed before.).

I must admit that the Documentary Hypothesis makes a lot of sense. I can't say I'm sure it is true, but at the same time I think it is less likely that it is false. If true, then that can explain why in some places, God is referred to as YHWH, Elohim, and in other places YHWH Elohim. As I said earlier, the number of times that both terms are used (translated LORD God) are fairly rare, and might indicate that the text had been present in both the J and E texts. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 04:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - Actually my friend, in accordance with Scripture, Judaism still teaches that there's only One God - without exception. In turn, Orthodox Christianity asserts the same. Mormonism in contrast seems to recognize the "oneness" of 3 different Gods but not the existence of "One Eternal God". Subsequently, as I look through your last post, I'm persuaded to address your proposal. I'm not sure Yeshua challenged the Jewish idea of God at all. The prophet Isaiah proclaimed that the the Messiah was "Mighty God" (9:6) - not merely "a God" but rather, God Himself. Isaiah also proclaimed the Messiah would suffer as a man (chapter 53). Jews who knew the Tanakh recognized the countless prophecies regarding the dual nature of Yeshua the Messiah (fully divine while also fully man).

The Apostle John was a Jew. As a devout Jew, he spoke the Temple language of Hebrew. He knew the Law of Moses and the prophets. Even though John wrote his Gospel in Kione Greek, he thought like a Hebrew. Consequently, John wrote the first chapter of his Gospel acknowledging that the Word was God [Elohim]. Not merely "a God" or “Godlike”, but rather "God" (“Theos” in Greek). Who was John's God? In short, John's God was "Elohim". His "God" was the God of Isreal - . "And God [Elohim] spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD [YHWH]" (Exodus 6:2).

In fact, Jesus was even accepting worship while He was still a "mortal" (Matthew 2:2,28:9, etc). Since God alone is to be worshipped, It was no secret as to whom the Jews thought the Nazarene was proclaiming Himself to be. Mmirarchi 03:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)''

Good point about Isaiah 9:6. I hadn't thought of it in that context. However, there are several places in the NT where the Jewish leaders were upset by Jesus equating himself to YHWH. (He was "convicted" of blasphemy). I had always thought it was because the Messiah was considered a hero rather than God himself - the Messiah would be sent by God to save Israel, but I didn't think the concept of the Messiah being God was widespread. I'm going to have to look into that further, and would welcome any pointers you may have.

Orthodox Christianity uses the concept of the Trinity to explain how Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost can be "one God." Although most believe in the Trinity, most cannot actually explain it - it is considered a mystery that can't be explained. The analogies that have been presented: (a) The shamrock - three leaves that make up a single plant, and (b) ice, water, and steam - three forms of the same substance. Western and Eastern Christians differ over substance or essence.

The Mormon concept of the Godhead is fairly straight forward - three individuals that work in perfect harmony. I think of the Godhead as a collective noun - similar to "family." Your father, mother, and yourself make up a single family. Three individuals, but one family. I think of the Godhead likewise - three individuals, but one God. (That isn't an official position - just the way I think of it.)

Mormons see no problem with the scriptures talking about one God. They consider the Godhead as one God in the same way as Christians believe the Trinity is one God. Jesus clearly deferred to Heavenly Father. Even so, Mormons (and all of Christianity) believe that Jesus is God. I believe the difference is in how we attempt to resolve the one God vs. Heavenly Father, Jesus and the Holy Ghost. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 04:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

wrp103 (Bill Pringle) Thanks for your reply my friend. If you want to research the topic regarding the Messiah's Deity further, consider the verses I provided below (just a small sample). These verses are "off the beaten path" (so to speak) and require some digging to find. In many respects, you’ll discover the Old Testament verifies that the expectant Messiah was destined to be God Himself - not merely a mortal. This accounts for the worship Jesus received while He walked among us. Although many Orthodox Jews attempt to ignore & refute this reality even today, an honest study of the Tanakh makes the evidence clear. Perhaps one of the most compelling verses regarding the Messiah's diety is found in Isaiah Chapter 6. In this passage, the prophet finds himself standing before the Glory of God and writes, "Woe to me!" I cried. "I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips...and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty" (Isaiah 6:5). In order to understand the relevance of this profound vision, it's important to find the correlation in the New Testament. Referencing this event, the Apostle John wrote, "...Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him..." (John 12:41). Keep in mind, the phrophet saw the Glory of Almighty God (El Shaddai) - it was the Apostle John who made the connection.

Some Other Verses...

1. “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel [God with us].” (Isaiah 7:14)

2. “The days are coming,' declares the Lord, 'When I will raise up to David a righteous Branch, a king who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land…This is the name by which He will be called; The Lord our Righteousness [YHWH Tseidkeynu]” (Jeremiah 23:5-6).

3. “And the LORD [YHWH] said to me, "Throw it to the potter"-the handsome price at which they priced me [YHWH]. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD...” (Zechariah 11:13-14)

4. "When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders. "I have sinned," he said, I have betrayed innocent blood…So Judas threw the money into the temple and left...” (Matthew 27:3-5) Mmirarchi 15:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

A few more citations... Isaiah 40:3<->John 1:21-31...Isaiah 44:6<->Revelation 1:11...Isaiah 22:22<->Revelation 3:7...Isaiah 43:11->Matthew 1:21->Acts 4:11...Exodus<->John 18:5-8 Why did they fall to the ground as Christ said "I AM"? And last but not least Job 1:6 where we see that it talks of Jehovah and the children of God. And for anyone that is STILL really confused, check out this scripture... John 16:23-24. ;) --Mexiswenson 00:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)