This final Section was my response. In the message I quoted her a great deal. For the sake of clarity I will keep the quotes in the text and change the font to denote who is talking.
Begin:
“So here you go Josh! I know that you have waited long for this and you are
anxious to see what I have come up with.“
True enough. Would you believe me if I told you I was a Mormon the whole time and the reason for the charade was just to help you learn how to “be all things to all men” and speak their language? It’s not true. But how hilarious would that be? Don’t think you would ever forgive me.
In any case, I would like to say you have improved a great deal. You have done a very good job of addressing several issues in a compassionate way. So before anything I just wanted to say how pleased I am with how well you’re adjusting to just an alien thinking style.
“What do I mean by the color of ones own glasses? It means we believe what we have been taught most of our life whether true or false from a young age. There is a word for this. It's called, Tradition!”
That is true. I can see where you are going with this (because I read ahead). This is a very good argument and with most people it would be necessary. Many people who grew up in a Christian faction are steeped in the traditions of men. I have likewise seen how people who hold these traditions sacred react when someone attempts to bring the truth to them. I can also see how gentle you are being. You are not out and out telling me I am timidly allowing false traditions to keep me from the truth. You are walking through how other people could be caught up in the mindset and refuse to leave the traditions of their childhood. You do a very good job of gently guiding me up to the idea that there might be some traditions I grew up with that are not true. I commend you for your skill in threading the needle.
However, it is not needed in my case. I know you are well aware, but my personality is very unique. I am an INTJ. I am born with a unique response to tradition.
“INTJs apply (often ruthlessly) the criterion "Does it work?" to everything from their own research efforts to the prevailing social norms. This in turn produces an unusual independence of mind, freeing the INTJ from the constraints of authority, convention, or sentiment for its own sake.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INTJ)
I do not accept tradition for its own sake. Neither do I accept doctrine, views on God, or other truths without ruthlessly examining it (as you experienced). I can just about hear you through the internet screaming that I say that a lot but how come I still hold to “traditions” I “grew up with”. I have examined them. I am going to take the next few pages to show you that I am not constrained to traditions like others are. I want to prove to you that I ruthlessly seek the truth and I do not allow other’s opinions, peer-pressure, or man’s tradition to hinder me. I have examined the traditions handed to me with the same ruthlessness I leveled at the LDS.
I grew up Church of Christ. My mother went to this particular church when I was only a few months old and she made some friends there and stayed. I grew up in that church listening to the same doctrine week to week. I grew up with friends and family (my grandparents were church of Christ also) all believing in the Church of Christ teachings. These are the traditions I grew up with. I applied my ruthless search for truth to the traditions I grew up with. Here are the results:
A cappella worship: The church I grew up in taught that instruments were prohibited by the bible and God in worship. Additionally, any church or group that used any sort of musical instrument (or even clapping or stomping) in worship was sinning. I applied my ruthless search for truth and found that these teachings far exceeded any bounds of sense. At best these teachings are founded on the lack of explicit mention of instruments used for worship in the new testament. They conveniently forget that instruments were regularly used in Old Testament worship which the first century church would have take part in before the old school Jews cast them out of Jerusalem. If using instruments were a sin to be part of worship that would have been mentioned at some point while the Christians were worshiping God with the other Jews and the Jewish worship team.
In addition to founding the teaching on a sketchy lack of evidence, the Church of Christ far exceeded any license they had in claiming to use instruments is a sin. At most they are permitted a strong preference against it. Additionally, some personalities don’t work well with a musical worship setting. I eventually concluded that this tradition was false and discarded it as a falsehood.
Another tradition I grew up with is amillennialsim. “Amillennialism (Latin: a- "no" + millennialism) is a view in Christian end-times theology named for its rejection of the theory that Jesus Christ will have a thousand-year-long, physical reign on the earth.”
Based on my reading of Revelation, this doctrine is false. I discarded this tradition.
Church of Christ believes that the work of the Holy Spirit (prophecy, healing, tongues) all ceased with the completion of the cannon. Based on my reading and prayer, I concluded that this doctrine was false. I discarded it.
Church of Christ believed that baptism was a necessary step of salvation. That until you were baptized you were not saved. If you died on the way to the lake to be baptized, you go to hell. I discarded this tradition. I will go over details in the response to the salvation email.
The Church of Christ also taught that to be Christian you had to be part of the Church of Christ denomination. Upon reading the bible I concluded this was a false and arrogant grab at power. It constitutes nothing more than a naked attempt to use hell as a threat to keep their people in line and loyal to the denomination. You can no doubt see that this is part of the reason I was exceptionally resistant to accepting the idea that a single denomination had all the authority. The priesthood sounds very similar to the doctrine I already abandoned. I realize you see it as completely different, but warning bells were going off nonstop in my head any time the authority of the LDS priesthood was explained.
One of the more common traditions handed down to me is Christmas. After examining this tradition I found that it is completely a demonic and pagan celebration from beginning to end. I still have family that hate me for refusing to celebrate Christmas and calling it pagan.
Easter is a pagan festival celebrating the pagan God Ishtar in which new born babies would be sacrificed. I no longer celebrate Easter.
So while I appreciate your gentle way of communicating that some traditions may be wrong, you can see I have been as brutal with the traditions I grew up with as I have been with the LDS. I seek truth, if the belief can’t make the cut, it gets cut.
“Jews teach God is a mystical spirit that can exist in any form. Appearing as a man is only one of Gods magical tricks.”
Sounds cool. Pretty much sums up my basic belief. I’m sure your cringing.
“They see this great all knowing being as an indescribable thing, or a blob of energy if you will; anything but an actual physical Heavenly Father with a body like Jesus or us!”
I have an interesting theory about that. See I think computers are a unique model of reality. I theorize that all of reality is an illusion. That God being an infinite being of infinite intelligence is running a simulation within His own mind. We all started as baseline consciousnesses within newly formed “bodies”. All of reality is a controlled dream within a sectioned off area in the mind of God. According to string theory, there are potentially an infinite number of realities coexistent with this one. God, being infinite, has no reason to not continuously using His creative powers in making other universes. God’s mind, being infinite, has no effective limit on the number of concurrent simulations he can run within His mind. Those people who accept salvation will be brought into a centralized section where the "rules" of reality break down to a more true existence. Heaven is a lucid matrix-like shared-dream state. We are all constructed consciousnesses and created out of the dream substance of God’s mind. None of it has any founding in the Bible so therefore no grounding to claim any of this is true. But it’s cool to think about.
“Further they simply dismiss Jesus as an imposter. As such they simply discount all the rest of the Biblical teaching, and rest all their belief on a few specific scriptures having in effect rendered the balance of scripture void, or of no value. Sadly it isn't just the Jews that have done this.”
True. But the truth still rests in the text of the bible for people to find like I did with the false teachings I grew up with. Christians are not helpless to discover the truth in America, they’re just lazy.
“We also have the corrupt effects of the creed of Nicia instigated by Constantine who was a Marist.”
I have already hit a few of the pagan beliefs that have infiltrated Christianity. So this is little surprise. Of course where the rubber hits the road is where the pain happens. I have met few people that don’t give me pushback about corrupt practices that have infiltrated Christianity. Would you believe Mormonism has also suffered from some of the same corrupting influence? None of the Christian factions are completely free. You have to take the pure components from each faction and reassemble the pieces.
As such he did everything in his power to pervert the teachings of Jesus Christ, and the Prophets including removing or hiding many of the ancient books such as the Book of Enoch, and 2 other books written by Phillip and Judas who were Apostles, and actual brothers of Jesus Christ.
“Constantine is responsible for changing baptism from immersion to sprinkling. Baptiso, is a Hebrew word which means to be immersed.”
Nitpick: Baptiso is Greek not Hebrew.
“As such neither of these groups believe the simple most consistent common theme of scripture wherein Jesus, and all Prophets refer to God as our actual Heavenly Father, and we are our his literal offspring children and family, and Jesus Christ is his first offspring created Son, and only His only begotten Son in the flesh.”
So if Jesus is God’s only flesh begotten child, then does that not mean we are not flesh begotten? We are all adopted yes?
I do agree that God is our Heavenly Father. However He is our heavenly Father in the sense that He created us and cares about us. We have life and consciousness because He breathes the breath of life into us at conception or thereabouts. My theology does not require God the Father to input any physical substance to complete the process.
Additionally, while the prophets did refer to God as a Father, they used it as a symbolic term. Mormons are free to believe that God is our literal Father but trying to claim the Jews understood the “Father” term to be literal is a rewriting of history.
“As such any translation of the Bible could only have been done according to the beliefs of the translators that prevailed at the time of any translation.”
While there are many translations that are not trust worthy, I again reiterate that we are not helpless. For example: the Amplified translation literally has each of the original words in sequence with the dictionary definition following each word. Granted it is difficult to read, but it brings as much of the original language to the reader for them to come to their own conclusions.
Also we have the original texts free for download. I have them in a program called E-Sword where I can go into the original language and click for the definition for each word in turn. I don’t do this for normal reading but for studying it helps to remove a lot of the bad translation trash you keep referring to.
“The simple truth about our heavenly father is so obvious to those that truly
have an open mind and are willing to ask in prayer for confirmation of the Holy Ghost.”
I agree and I am glad we live in an age where we are not at the mercy of some guru to magically give us the true translation on a sliver platter [or gold tablets, in this case]. We have the ability to study the original texts and discover the truth of God for ourselves.
“Let me demonstrate just a few really easy truths that are indisputable.”
I think you will be surprised. Hopefully I can teach you some things as well.
“I have learned that though I will teach and demonstrate truths in this email. The Holy spirit is the one that will testify what I am teaching is true, and not just because I said it.”
And I hope the Holy Spirit will similarly enlighten you to the truth in my words as well as the misconceptions.
“1. The baptism of Jesus…. Let me explain, He God, existing now as Jesus, tricked the saints who were there with Him, throwing his voice in a ventriloquist fashion into the heavens while, yet standing in the water, and then giving all those watching a light show causing his own spirit to jump out of his body and descend upon himself, so that he can prove his plurality? Is that what this baptism was all about? Some actually believe such stories.”
Not entirely sure why you feel the need to address the plurality of God. I already stated that I believe the members of the Godhead are distinct entities. *is confused*
Teachable moment of the Day: This understanding of the trinity is not taught by anyone. Neither the Catholic Church nor any mainstream teacher I am aware of teaches this understanding.
In fact the understand you are describing is considered heresy by the Catholic Church.
“Sabellianism taught that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are essentially one and the same, the difference being simply verbal, describing different aspects or roles of a single being.[25] For this view Sabellius was excommunicated for heresy in Rome c. 220.”
In fact, the standard view of God according to the normal Christians are, in fact, three distinct beings who simply share the same divine, holy, loving nature.
“The Christian doctrine of the Trinity defines God as three divine persons or hypostases:[1] the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit; "one God in three persons". The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature".[2] A nature is what one is, while a person is who one is.[3][4][5]”
This is a video explaining the standard Christian understanding from a prominent leader in the American evangelical church. I realize your prez is probably not going to let you watch but I am providing it anyway so you can see I am not making stuff up. There are a lot of other videos I could send your way but I don’t want to overwhelm you.
The Trinity & The Gospel
You do a good job of showing step by step that God is three persons. However, unless I am still missing something and the LDS doctrine is still even more distinct from the normal trinity, I believe we are in agreement (except the physical aspect of God the Father) on the points you make about: Mount of Transfiguration, Garden of Gethsemane, The scene at the cross just before Jesus dies, and at the tomb.
“Obviously, she doesn't at first recognize the perfected younger looking,
unscarred, unbeaten, resurrected body of Jesus she remembered while looking
right at him.”
I am curious on your thoughts on my theory about Jesus being immortal because He was sinless. I will paste it here for you convenience. I would like to hear your thoughts on it.
Rom 5:12 Therefore, even as through one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed on all men inasmuch as all sinned:
Death is a natural consequence of sin. If Adam and Eve had not eaten of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil then they would have never aged or died because death does not come without sin. We also will live forever after we are resurrected in glorified sinless bodies. Sin=Death. No sin = no Death. So I would make the argument that Jesus was immortal and unaging like Adam was before the fall and literally could not physically be killed until the sins of the world were attached to Him.
“Isn't the truth simply obvious? Jesus Christ is the literal Son of God! He is the Savior of all God children. He was the first Son created by God before anything else was created.”
I agree that Jesus is the Son of God and begotten in a Spiritual (non-physical) way.
“We have clearly established the Father and Son do not jump in and out of each others bodies in some mystical form.”
True. Jesus has a body of flesh and bone/blood. Only God the Father has a mystical essence of wispy cloud form that can reform to other shapes. Oh, and the Holy Spirit is a spirit without flesh or bone. He can take shapes too. :)
“If we are to believe that the use of the word ONE refers to such ridiculous notions then we must consistently apply the same interpretation in every other use.”
I think I will send my paper on it just cause.
“Fred, your upbringing and tradition is what has confused you. Thats understandable! But grabbing for any single scripture in hope of defending life long beliefs while discounting all the rest of scripture is not a defensible practice. “
*Reads, sinks at the irony*
“There is a reason we say in our articles of faith that we believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.”
This is not a bad way of doing things. There is a lot of translations which are nothing but people with agendas trying to manipulate people.
“The word Bible was assigned to the translated compiled Book by men not God. That word Bible does not appear anywhere in the ancient writings. Bible is a Hebrew word which means simply, "collection of books". “
Again, it is a Greek word.
Here is where things seem to fall apart. Before this section, I’m tracking with you. I still don’t accept the Father having flesh but like I said in the last email, that has faded in importance with the other issues. Everything else I already agree with or understand where you are coming from. However, this Rosetta Stone bit completely loses me. I don’t want to be mean, but it feels like you are talking about a completely different Rosetta stone.
“Back then, there was no such thing as a Rosetta stone. What is the Rosetta stone? Well in the early 1900's a stone was found in Egypt which had 3 ancient languages written on it. Egyptian, Arabic, and Greek or Latin. One story had been written 3 times on the stone in each of the different languages I have described.”
The following are quotes from the Museum where it is housed:
“the inscription on the Rosetta Stone is a decree passed by a council of priests.”
“The decree is inscribed on the stone three times, in hieroglyphic (suitable for a priestly decree), demotic (the native script used for daily purposes), and Greek (the language of the administration). The importance of this to Egyptology is immense.”
“scholars were able to use the Greek inscription on this stone as the key to decipher them”
I am sorry, but you are completely off on the Rosetta Stone. This stone did nothing to improve our understanding on translating Greek into English. The Rossetta stone did NOTHING!!!! NOTHING!!! NOTHING!!! Scholars had to use the understanding of Greek they already had to learn the Egyptian languages. Our understanding of Greek did not change or improve whatsoever from this stone at all. This is why I was so confused when you mentioned it in your teaser email before this one was sent.
“A new translation using the Rosetta stone would be incredibly more accurate. Let me give just a few examples I have discovered.“
Putting aside the issue of the Rosetta stone, seeking the correct translation is still important.
“The word day used in Genesis is incorrect. The correct words should have been "periods of time" not "day". What a difference that would make impacting the Biblical creation story with actual science.”
You have no idea how frustrated I was at reading this line. Even now I am trying to not start screaming about this. I will try to be gentle.
The word “day” comes from the Hebrew (Strong’s number – H3117): (יום) or yôm. The dictionary definition is as follows:
yome
1. From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term),
Notice that this word is similar to our word for “day.” In the literal meaning it could mean the day time hours or a 24 hour period. In the figurative sense if could mean a period of time. This has to be determined by the context of the scripture.
So even if the Rosetta stone did aid in our understanding of Greek it would not help because 1) the old testament was written in Hebrew, not Greek. This means that the Rosetta stone, which did not have Hebrew, has zero ability to help us in this translation regardless of whether it had the effect you claim. 2) The stone does not help us because the there is not a separate word for 24-hour period versus period of time. It is the same word for both meanings and therefore must be determined by the context. The stone cannot help us in this.
So how do we know? There are several issues with the long-day theory (this is the official name). The first is that the writer is working very hard to show that this is a literal account, not poetry. In Psalms it uses the language’s equivalent terms of “like” and “as”. It is clearly poetry because it uses this imagery and similes (I think that is the right word). There are no similes in the Genesis account. The second problem that the writer refuses to allow us that interpretation. The writer is familiar with the Hebrew language and knows that this misunderstanding is possible. Because of this, the writer takes great pains to clearly communicate this is not the proper meaning. See how he structures the sentence.
Genessis 1:3-5 (King James – Apparently updated)
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Please notice the sentence structure: “And the evening and the morning were the first day.” The writer does not want us to believe this is a long period of time. He is taking great pains to show us this is meant as a 24-hour period: evening + morning = first day. In what world does an evening and a morning become millions of years? The only way that would work was if the earth was not rotating during the progression of creation and that would kill everything on both day and night sides.
Evening (ערב From H6150; dusk + day, even (-ing, tide), night.) + Morning (בּקרFrom H1239; properly dawn (as the break of day); generally morning: - (+) day, early, morning, morrow.) = day (יום From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day(as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term))
Am I making sense? The writer is desperately trying to pound the idea into our heads…. 24-hour period …. 24-hour period. He uses this exact same phrase like 11 times. He is desperate to not allow us to warp the text into saying something it is not. The third problem is that trying to mesh the bible’s account with the evolution theory brutalizes the bible needlessly. The combined account is even dumber than the bible alone. *Sigh* See following:
Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed,and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, do you notice how the plants are created in verse 11? That was the third day. The stars and moon was created in verse 14, that was the fourth day. The third day comes before the fourth day. Are you tracking with me? 3 goes before 4. That means in a bible account combined with evolution, means that plants evolved/were created/God guided evolution/whatever before the gases from the big bang had condensed into stars and the moon. That means you are making the bible say there was oceans and plants and trees on earth for billions of years before the nebula that became our solar system had finished condensing into the sun and before the moon had been caught in orbit. You are making the bible say that earth had liquid oceans and plants and trees sitting on the Earth’s surface for BILLIONS AND BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of years with NO SUN and NO MOON, ALL WHILE EARTH IS STILL PART OF A NEBULA, THEN A MOLTEN ROCK, AND THEN STILL WITHOUT WATER WHILE COMMETS DEPOSIT WATER ON THE SURFACE!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!?
I am trying to not be mean. Really, I am. But THINK FELSTED, THINK!!!!! Does that mangled string of events make any sense? Does the Holy Spirit testify to that mess being true? Ponder for a second. Read for a second. PRAY TO JESUS TO LEAD YOU TO THE TRUTH FOR A MINUTE!!!!! Seriously, stand up. Walk away from the computer. Pray for at least 60 seconds for Jesus to guide you to the truth. I’m not joking, GO!
.
.
.
.
Now that you're back. Please….. please!!!! Can’t you see? Evolution is not science and never was. Science is a method or process to learn how something works. Science is defined as: observable, repeatable, measurable. How much of evolution fits that description? 1) no person is millions of years old so there is no human on earth that has observed this stuff happen. 2) The big bang is not repeatable nor can we put any meaningful portion of the big bang or macro-evolution into a lab and repeat it. 3) And there is no way to measure all that. The big bang and evolution is just a false theory put forward by Satan and disguised as “science” to aid in attacking the church. Instead of standing their ground, Christians cave to the lie thinking that “science” is unassailable and that we have to change the bible to match with the “objective truth”. Evolution is a lie. If you want to hear more about that topic, here is a link. I realize that your prez won’t let you watch it but you only have a few months until your mission is over. You can watch it then.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!! … Just needed to scream. I think I’m okay now.
“Next, when Jesus gave the Apostles the priesthood the Bible
says, " and what so ever thou shalt "bind" on earth shall be "bound" in heaven".“
???
Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
The word “Bind” comes from G1210: δέω deō: A primary verb; to bind (in various applications, literally or figuratively): - bind, be in bonds, knit, tie, wind. See alsoG1163, G1189.
G1189: δέομαι deomai: Middle voice of G1210; to beg (as binding oneself), that is,petition: - beseech, pray (to), make request. Compare G4441.
“Well guess what, the Book of Mormon prophets repeated that scripture only they wrote it correctly saying "seal" not "bind".”
Not sure I see the difference. *is confused*
“How many times do you think a single word change would also have the ability to change the meaning of a sentence or phrase. These are the facts! This is undisputed among Biblical scholars. No wonder there are so many opinions of what the Prophets wrote and what God said or meant. Specifically let's talk about the one scripture Fred sites wherein it says "For God is a spirit". Would it surprise you that the word "is" is an italicized word meaning it was in dispute by the translators? Using the Rosetta stone the word should have been "has". What a mess this little honest mistake has made in the world of Fred and countless others.”
Here is the problem with your theory. Again, setting aside the Rosetta stone, the word there is not a possessive, the word is an article. Here is the phrase in Greek
πνεῦμα ὁ Θεός
And here are the word definitions
πνεῦμα: pneuma From G4154; a current of air, that is, breath (blast) or a breeze; by analogy or figuratively a spirit,
ὁ: the
θεός: theos Of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with G3588) the supremeDivinity;
So a literal word for word translation would be:
Spirit the God
The word “has” is not there.
Έχω: have, own, come up with, carry
Sorry if this is getting technical.
“Acts 17:24:26 refers to the children of God as His offspring. Paul was trying
to teach the saints in Romans who were pegans or idol worshipers, that God DOES
NOT appear within different objects or forms such as statues and idols. Further
he explains God has no need to attach himself to or within anything.”
Such as a body of flesh! Sorry, I could not resist.
“24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of
heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples ( temples here doesn't mean actual
temples or tabernacles it means statues)”
I would also point out that “temple” is also symbolism for body. (1 Corinthians 6:19)
“26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, (the word blood is used here signifying he Heavenly Father designed our physical bodies not just our spirits)”
?!?!?!?! So you are saying that God did make our Spirits? That contradicts with Smith who said God is incapable of creating an eternal spirit. *is confused*
“and hath determined the times before appointed, ( we were all appointed to come to earth in the pre-existent spirit world, long before we were born)
before appointed: G4384: προτάσσω protassō: From G4253 and G5021; to pre-arrange, that is, prescribe: - before appoint.
I realize you believe that we had an existence before our mortal incarnation. That is covered under count 2.
“30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men
every where to repent: (Repent of what? The foolish traditions of the Jews which had perverted their belief, and undertstanding of God and who he really is)
?!?!?!?!? PAUL IS TALKING TO GENTILES THAT HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING OF JEWISH BELIEFS!!!!!!!! *is more confused*.
Anyway, after this point you continued with Acts and hit Alma. I completely lost track of your thoughts at this point. Sorry. You may have to rewrite it in a different way. I just did not understand. My eyes started going cross eyed. Course I have been focusing on the screen reading and writing about this stuff for 8 hours straight at this point. That might have something to do with it….. Naaa.
And yes I was prayeingJesus lead me to the truth while I was reading this paper. But at least we established some common ground. That's something right?
No comments:
Post a Comment