"Did Heavenly Father ever sin during his mortal probation?"

Bonnie

Super Member
Janice has posted links for you. I suggest you read the whole thing line by line.
Yes, indeed. Mormons need to read it in context--that ol' bugaboo of Mormonism. Smith was going to refute the idea that God was God FROM ALL ETERNITY. Only someone willfully blinding himself/herself to the truth would fail to see and understand what Smith was talking about.
 
Last edited:

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Janice has posted links for you. I suggest you read the whole thing line by line.
So, you know those words are in there. You've made them up with you and your pals. If they were, then you could show them to me and you can't. You KNOW you can't. All you can do is infer and that, only vaguely because the context doesn't support your claims. If you can just get people not to read it and just accept your claims, then perhaps they will accept it.

I believe that it is possible that sinners can become like God. I believe that is the purpose that we are here. How close to becoming like God can we become? Well, we can become 100% like him. I believe that's what the Bible teaches. But what we cannot do is what Jesus did and no matter how perfectly we are like God, we will never have a mortal life that can save even a single being. Obviously, Jesus was not emulating a sinner in his life. Whoever Jesus was emulating, that being did the very same things Jesus did.

So, what do we do about the idea that God the Father was once a sinner like us? It seems to be an empty argument. So, if I had a son, and my father (not me) did those things, is it not reasonable that this statement would equally work? "I tell you the son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the father doing, For whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise."

Which Father is Jesus referring to? Joseph? God the Father? God the Father's father? A resurrected being's father? The statement is so generic, we cannot tell who it is that Jesus is referring to, we just assume he means God the Father, but again, if that is true, then what exactly did Jesus see this ethereal object do that he in the flesh would be able to do? Can anyone explain that?

I know this is too complicated for you to grasp even if I shorten it, but suffice it to say that the verbiage that Jesus used here is too ambiguous to know exactly who Jesus was referring to. We can be certain it wasn't Joseph. If there are Elohim (meaning gods) and some of them are resurrected, exalted beings who are able to continue the seeds and perhaps were sinners in their mortal life (as we are now), obviously, the being Jesus would be referring to, wouldn't be them, but it would be the one who He is emulating.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
She is not wrong.
So, now you are the arbiter of truth eh? She's not right. She is wrong. I asked for the specific phrase she keeps indicating that Joseph Smith said and still, nothing. Paste the whole discourse and tell me it's there, but it's not. The context is not there, the words are not there and just because you say she's right, doesn't make those words appear in there anywhere.
What idea was Smith refuting here: "“We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea,
The idea that God is what we have imagined and supposed God to be from all eternity. No one in our religion has ever suggested that God was not God at one time. The context does not support that idea. It's not rocket science to figure out what the context is, but you all don't care about context.

What have we imagined and supposed that God was from eternity to all eternity? We have supposed God to be an ethereal nothingness that fills the expanse of the universe. Did Joseph Smith refute that? Yes, he did. Did he refute that God was ever not God? Did he provide any evidence whatsoever? No. He didn't. He didn't quote scripture to support that notion, but he did quote scripture to support the idea that God is not ethereal and he did so quite nicely. As I said, you are not the arbiter of truth, so you don't get to decide.

Anyone who wants to read it can. If they really want to know, all they have to do is read the whole thing and see if Joseph ever supported that claim. If he didn't then that must not be what he was refuting. He's not so stupid as to say he's going to do something and then never do it and the people who listened to him that day weren't so stupid as to not see that. Clearly, the point of the discourse was that God has a body just like Jesus does and that God got his body the same way Jesus did, that He lived and died and was resurrected. That's what Jesus did. Jesus is God, right? So, what is so difficult about God, the Father, doing the very same thing?

Again, our critics seem to be completely ignorant of God's ongoing work. Surely, if Abraham's seed is to be as countless as the sands of the sea and stars of the heavens, then that work has to continue well past the lifespan of this world but you guys have no clue how that's supposed to happen. In fact, I'd dare say that you all don't care about that. and that is quite telling. It doesn't matter that you ignore it, it's not going away. Ad the end of this earth, there will be a new earth and a new heaven. That earth won't be for us. But someone will live there, live out their mortality there. How will they get there? Well, God is going to put them there. How will they become mortal, well, it appears that they are going to eat a fruit that their not supposed to eat. If they become mortal and can die, then won't they need a savior? Yes, they will. It's a plan we are all already familiar with, but unfortunately, they can't have a Savior if your theology is correct because in your theology there can be no savior for them, period. So, in your limited view and understanding, all of God's work ends after this earth expires. That's a dead-end street. I'm quite happy that God, the real God and Father of Jesus Christ has a plan that is perfect and neverending. In God's plan, Christ will fill the role of God the Father and He will provide a Savior for the new earth. His son can say, I am only doing what I see the father doing because Jesus actually did it.

And, if I (as an exalted sinner) have a son and He volunteers to save his brothers and sisters (like Christ did for us) and he descends into mortality as a Son of God, that phrase would still apply, but not because of what He saw me do but what he saw that "the Father" (Christ) did (see my previous post). Obviously, whoever it was that Jesus was emulating, that being was not a sinner like you and I.
What is "THAT" idea that Smith was going to refute?
THAT idea is what we have "imagined and supposed". Do you think that anyone in that audience ever had it in their imagination or had supposed that God, the Father, was a resurrected being? No. What they and what you all still imagine and suppose is that God was and is eternally an ethereal blob that floats in space with his all-seeing eye, creating things from his imagination. That is what Joseph Smith refuted.
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
So, you know those words are in there. You've made them up with you and your pals. If they were, then you could show them to me and you can't. You KNOW you can't. All you can do is infer and that, only vaguely because the context doesn't support your claims. If you can just get people not to read it and just accept your claims, then perhaps they will accept it.

I believe that it is possible that sinners can become like God. I believe that is the purpose that we are here. How close to becoming like God can we become? Well, we can become 100% like him. I believe that's what the Bible teaches. But what we cannot do is what Jesus did and no matter how perfectly we are like God, we will never have a mortal life that can save even a single being. Obviously, Jesus was not emulating a sinner in his life. Whoever Jesus was emulating, that being did the very same things Jesus did.

So, what do we do about the idea that God the Father was once a sinner like us? It seems to be an empty argument. So, if I had a son, and my father (not me) did those things, is it not reasonable that this statement would equally work? "I tell you the son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the father doing, For whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise."

Which Father is Jesus referring to? Joseph? God the Father? God the Father's father? A resurrected being's father? The statement is so generic, we cannot tell who it is that Jesus is referring to, we just assume he means God the Father, but again, if that is true, then what exactly did Jesus see this ethereal object do that he in the flesh would be able to do? Can anyone explain that?

I know this is too complicated for you to grasp even if I shorten it, but suffice it to say that the verbiage that Jesus used here is too ambiguous to know exactly who Jesus was referring to. We can be certain it wasn't Joseph. If there are Elohim (meaning gods) and some of them are resurrected, exalted beings who are able to continue the seeds and perhaps were sinners in their mortal life (as we are now), obviously, the being Jesus would be referring to, wouldn't be them, but it would be the one who He is emulating.
Your refusal to read it, even though the link is from your church’s website, says it all.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
So, now you are the arbiter of truth eh? She's not right. She is wrong. I asked for the specific phrase she keeps indicating that Joseph Smith said and still, nothing. Paste the whole discourse and tell me it's there, but it's not. The context is not there, the words are not there and just because you say she's right, doesn't make those words appear in there anywhere.

The idea that God is what we have imagined and supposed God to be from all eternity. No one in our religion has ever suggested that God was not God at one time. The context does not support that idea. It's not rocket science to figure out what the context is, but you all don't care about context.

What have we imagined and supposed that God was from eternity to all eternity? We have supposed God to be an ethereal nothingness that fills the expanse of the universe. Did Joseph Smith refute that? Yes, he did. Did he refute that God was ever not God? Did he provide any evidence whatsoever? No. He didn't. He didn't quote scripture to support that notion, but he did quote scripture to support the idea that God is not ethereal and he did so quite nicely. As I said, you are not the arbiter of truth, so you don't get to decide.

Anyone who wants to read it can. If they really want to know, all they have to do is read the whole thing and see if Joseph ever supported that claim. If he didn't then that must not be what he was refuting. He's not so stupid as to say he's going to do something and then never do it and the people who listened to him that day weren't so stupid as to not see that. Clearly, the point of the discourse was that God has a body just like Jesus does and that God got his body the same way Jesus did, that He lived and died and was resurrected. That's what Jesus did. Jesus is God, right? So, what is so difficult about God, the Father, doing the very same thing?

Again, our critics seem to be completely ignorant of God's ongoing work. Surely, if Abraham's seed is to be as countless as the sands of the sea and stars of the heavens, then that work has to continue well past the lifespan of this world but you guys have no clue how that's supposed to happen. In fact, I'd dare say that you all don't care about that. and that is quite telling. It doesn't matter that you ignore it, it's not going away. Ad the end of this earth, there will be a new earth and a new heaven. That earth won't be for us. But someone will live there, live out their mortality there. How will they get there? Well, God is going to put them there. How will they become mortal, well, it appears that they are going to eat a fruit that their not supposed to eat. If they become mortal and can die, then won't they need a savior? Yes, they will. It's a plan we are all already familiar with, but unfortunately, they can't have a Savior if your theology is correct because in your theology there can be no savior for them, period. So, in your limited view and understanding, all of God's work ends after this earth expires. That's a dead-end street. I'm quite happy that God, the real God and Father of Jesus Christ has a plan that is perfect and neverending. In God's plan, Christ will fill the role of God the Father and He will provide a Savior for the new earth. His son can say, I am only doing what I see the father doing because Jesus actually did it.

And, if I (as an exalted sinner) have a son and He volunteers to save his brothers and sisters (like Christ did for us) and he descends into mortality as a Son of God, that phrase would still apply, but not because of what He saw me do but what he saw that "the Father" (Christ) did (see my previous post). Obviously, whoever it was that Jesus was emulating, that being was not a father had it in their imagination or had supposed that God, the Father, was a resurrected being? No. What they and what you all still imagine and suppose is that God was and is eternally an ethereal blob that floats in space with his all-seeing eye, creating things from his imagination. That is what Joseph Smith refuted.
I have read the KFD several times--and Smith does support his claim and attempt to refute the idea that "God was God from all eternity."

Sorry, but what you wrote is NOT what we have "imagined and supposed". What we have "imagined and supposed" is that God is eternal. That He has always been God. NOT that we believe God is some "blob." That is nonsense. But even Jesus Himself said, in John 4, that "God is spirit." And in context, He meant His Father. Right there Jesus Christ Himself refutes Smith's lies about God.

I will listen to and believe Jesus Christ and not Joseph Smith, jr. and his lies.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Your refusal to read it, even though the link is from your church’s website, says it all.
First off, I didn't refuse to read it. However, you have still yet to produce that phrase that you claim Joseph Smith said, says it all. I have read it. I know what it says. I can only lead you all to water, but I can't make you drink it. I can point out the issues, but I can't make you understand them. That's something you have to do on your own.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
I have read the KFD several times
So have I. The fact remains, no matter how many times you or anyone else reads it, they will never find the words, God was once not God, in it. If you are reading it, you are not paying attention to the context. Joseph Smith is explaining that God, the Father is a resurrected being who lived the same kind of life that Jesus did and that he is now a resurrected being, embodied, flesh and bone having the same DNA that we have.

Now, have you ever supposed or imagined God was any of that? No? I didn't think so. The idea that God is some ethereal nothingness that fills the universe is the idea that Joseph Smith was refuting. To take it further than that, you'd have to have something that actually said, that God wasn't God at one time and he never said that nor did he even hint at it. You all have conjured up that idea because of your propensity of focusing on only 4 or 5 words and disregarding the context in favor of your animus.
and Smith does support his claim and attempt to refute the idea that "God was God from all eternity."
Where?
Sorry, but what you wrote is NOT what we have "imagined and supposed". What we have "imagined and supposed" is that God is eternal.
That was never brought into question at any point of the discourse. So, now you're telling me that you know that God the Father has a body and is a resurrected being? That's odd.
NOT that we believe God is some "blob." That is nonsense.
Then what do you suppose and imagine him to be? What does he look like? Can we touch him? We have pictures of Jesus, do you have one of God the Father that would suggest to us how our mind imagines him to be?
But even Jesus Himself said, in John 4, that "God is spirit."
Again, God was standing right there. How can God be a spirit if he was standing right there in the flesh talking to them?
And in context, He meant His Father.
I know that. But are you now saying that Jesus isn't God? Are you saying that God is two different beings? Your argument is weak and you know it, that's why you keep adding that caveat. You have nothing. IF Jesus is God, then regardless of who Jesus was talking about, God obviously has a body. I know he was talking about His Father (and our Father). While God, who was standing right there in the flesh had a body, He also had a spirit. If we truly followed the context and not the 4 or 5 words you seem to only be able to see, we would see that it is through the spirit that God communicates with us and that we can worship him in spirit wherever we are. That passage continues, "and those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth." Obviously, the intent was not for us to get rid of our bodies so we could worship God in spirit. Why then would you interpret them separately? That one instance, that God doesn't have a body and in the other instance, that the fact that we do has no relevance on worshiping in spirit? So, we have three parallels here.

1. God, in Jesus was present in body and spirit.
2. The worshippers were present in body and spirit.
3. God, in the Father was present in spirit but not body.

It seems that the spirit is consistent throughout, but the body is irrelevant to worship. or more specifically, that where the body is, is irrelevant to worship. It is clear from the passage that the context has nothing to do with the physical characteristics of God the Father. It was not an attempt to define his physical appearance, but rather his all-encompassing presence. The fact that God was standing right there, for the believer, should make that obvious, but you all ignore it and you just did.

I have asked this question before, but our critics never answer it. Does Jesus still have his body or did He leave it somewhere? If he does, is he aware of us only if he is present as he was when he made that statement you referenced? or his he just a spirit now? I personally believe, and I believe this should be the doctrine of all Christians, that Jesus is both embodied and will be forever and spiritually present everywhere. The Father is also, which was the point of the KFD.

So, what does a spirit look like? How big is it? When I said blob, I meant no disrespect but I used it because it has no describable dimensions whatsoever, like a blob. We just know it's big. I guess in your imagination, it must be really really big. I mean, HUGE, right?

The point of the KFD, again, was that God is a man now, in very form and Joseph proved that by the Bible and made no reference to there being a time when God wasn't God. That is purely manufactured by our critics using the same methods they used to manufacture that God is an ethereal nothingness floating in space and time, namely by focusing on 4 or 5 words they RIPPED out of context from the scriptures.

God the Father can't be a blob or an ethereal nothingness or a spirit because biology 101 states that only humans can make babies with humans. Period. To believe anything else is to believe in magic, the same as only nothing can be created from nothing.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
So have I. The fact remains, no matter how many times you or anyone else reads it, they will never find the words, God was once not God, in it. If you are reading it, you are not paying attention to the context.

Playing the "quote the exact words" game, huh?
Not impressed.

Joseph Smith is explaining that God, the Father is a resurrected being who lived the same kind of life that Jesus did and that he is now a resurrected being, embodied, flesh and bone having the same DNA that we have.

Okay, let's take a look at that, shall we?

The KFD was given in March, 1844.
Joseph Smith died in June, 1844.
The name "DNA" was coined by Albrecht Kossel, in 1881.

Now, I would just LOVE for you to show us where Joseph Smith talked about "DNA" in the KFD, in "exact words", your own standard you are demanding of the critics.



And every time I type "KFD" I'm thinking I would just LOVE some Kentucky Fried Duck.
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
She is not wrong. What idea was Smith refuting here: "“We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.” ~ Joseph Smith, General Conference, April 1844."

What is "THAT" idea that Smith was going to refute?

I believe the same ideas some people harbor which the Biblical text refutes in it's testimony:

Hebrews 1:1-9--King James Version
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:
4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

Acts 5:30-32---King James Version
30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour,for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

Revelation 3:21--King James Version
21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
Search These Commandments, 1984, teaches that God was once a man.

I suppose we better hope that God was once a man--the whole salvation of man depends on it.

So, Janice--have you ever read the Biblical NT?

John 19:30--King James Version
30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Christianity 101.
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
Yes, we're all aware.
And it goes largely ignored (that "not translated correctly" copout).
You guys ignore all the "only one god exists" passages.

To be exact--I have asked you and the critics here why the Biblical NT writers always separated out God the Son from the "one God" of the Biblical text--and testified God the Son had a God and Father also:

1 Corinthians 8:6---King James Version (KJV)6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

1 Timothy 2:5--King James Version (KJV)
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Ephesians 4:4-6--King James Version (KJV)

4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

John 17:3---King James Version (KJV)
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Matthew 22:44 ---King James Version (KJV)
44 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?

1 Peter 1:3--King James Version (KJV)
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

John 20:17---King James Version (KJV)
17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Ephesians 1:17---King James Version (KJV)

17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

Hebrews 1:9---King James Version (KJV)
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

This is what I would like the critics here to explain:--how do you collate the witness of the OT writers of no other god--and the witness of the NT writers separating out the very God of the OT--from the "one God" of the NT--and testifying God the Son, the God of the OT--has a God and Father also?

How????
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
First off, I didn't refuse to read it. However, you have still yet to produce that phrase that you claim Joseph Smith said, says it all. I have read it. I know what it says. I can only lead you all to water, but I can't make you drink it. I can point out the issues, but I can't make you understand them. That's something you have to do on your own.
I quoted it word for word. Many times. You’re the one who refuses to see what it actually says.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
I quoted it word for word. Many times. You’re the one who refuses to see what it actually says.
Nope. You cut and pasted a quote from the text, but you still haven't shown me or anyone where it says "God was not always God". It's not there. The context makes it quite clear that Joseph wasn't explaining when God became God or that he was refuting the idea that God has always been God. He was refuting the idea that God is an ethereal nothing that fills the immensity of space.
 

Janice Bower

Well-known member
The Book of Mormon is very clear that God the Father had no probation since he was God from Eternity


Doctrine and Covenants 20 :

28 Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.
According to Mormonism, not even those on earth had a beginning.

D&C 131:20
20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

Bible, Psalm 90:2
Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
One more time, with feeling…

“In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.

“These ideas are incomprehensible to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible.”

”Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. And I want you to know that God, in the last days, while certain individuals are proclaiming His name, is not trifling with you or me.”

To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a god, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before. What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. My Father worked out His kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to My Father, so that He may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt Him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take His place, and thereby become exalted myself. So that Jesus treads in the tracks of His Father, and inherits what God did before; and God is thus glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all His children. It is plain beyond disputation, and you thus learn some of the first principles of the gospel, about which so much hath been said.”

“When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the gospel—you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave.”


————————-

He said God was not always God. He was a human who worked His way up a ladder to godhood.
 

The Prophet

Active member
He did not. Now, get rid of all that highlighting and highlight the words "God was not always God". You can't. Those words are not there.
As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.
Author: Lorenzo Snow
Source: Gospel Through The Ages
Chapter: 43
Page: 105
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
He said God was not always God. He was a human who worked His way up a ladder to godhood.

Whatever one concludes what was said--the scriptures raise a serious polemic against some claims here, which, IMO-- can't be ignored:

Hebrews 1:1-9---King James Version
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:
4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtaineda more excellent name than they.
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

That plainly testifies Jesus Christ received an inheritance of all things at some point. If one reads the parable of the Heir in Matthew21 confirms that. That means He did not have that inheritance until some point.

An honest consideration of that testimony might be necessary to gain a full understanding of Christ's inheritance.

Also--some more testimony which needs to be considered:

Revelation 3:21---King James Version
21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Say what you will, but the horse you claim is corralled, has just jumped the fence. Mag--you might have put a saddle on that, but you haven't ridden it yet.
 
Top