brotherofJared
Well-known member
Do u remember your first breath? Do u remember the first time you didn't need to wear diapers? Do u remember your first step? If you don't remember any of those, does that mean it didn't happen?
Is Pre-mortality part of "the Gospel"?
- Thread starter Aaron32
- Start date
Richard7
Well-known member
CrowCross
Well-known member
Ex nihilo is Latin for “from nothing.” The term creation ex nihilo refers to God creating everything from nothing. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1). Prior to that moment, there was nothing. God didn’t make the universe from preexisting building blocks. He started from scratch.
The Bible never expressly states that God made everything from nothing, but it is implied. In Hebrews 11:3 we read, “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.” Scholars take this to mean that the universe came into existence by divine command and was not assembled from preexisting matter or energy. Things that are visible do not owe their existence to anything visible.
Humans can be very creative, but we cannot create ex nihilo. Strictly speaking, we cannot create; we can only synthesize. We require materials from which to build something. God is not so constrained. This is difficult for us to comprehend because of a fundamental law of physics that we are all familiar with. The “first law of science” states that matter (the stuff the universe is made of) cannot be created or destroyed. Matter can be converted from solid to liquid to gas to plasma and back again; atoms can be combined into molecules and split into their component parts; but matter cannot be created from nothing or completely destroyed. And so this idea that God created everything from nothing is not natural to us. It’s not natural at all—it’s supernatural.
The term creation ex nihilo refers to the supernatural event that was the beginning of the universe. It was the moment that God created something (everything) from nothing. ref
Now, what you, a mormon, is telling me is that the pre-incarnate Jesus was nothing more than matter....that became the spirit of Jesus.
I suppose if you wind the clock back far enough..God the father from Kolob was at one time nothing more than matter.
CrowCross
Well-known member
Because it's true?
Why do some mormons teach Mary had sexual relations with the man from Kolob?
CrowCross
Well-known member
Sounds like you're putting your "Priesthood authority" on some puffed up pedestal.
You kinda make me sick when you claim the LDS Mormon way demands your form of authority...or the baptism that "saves" doesn't count.
Richard7
Well-known member
Believe in what ever man or women and their opinions have expressed about that... you choose who you want to believe...
As for me, Mary was a virgin and I shared the definition with you...
CrowCross
Well-known member
How about the Kolob part? Is that still mormon doctrine or have they also dropped that?
Greetings again brotherofJared and Richard7,
Kind regards
Trevor
Yes good answer. I appreciate your answer as I was not sure if a LDS had memory of his previous existence. I do not believe in pre-existence, or the pre-existence of Jesus. I should imagine that Trinitarians believe that Jesus had full cognisance of what happened before his supposed "incarnation", and I did not know if a LDS considered he had a similar position. Perhaps you also consider Jesus as a different category.
Kind regards
Trevor
The Prophet
Well-known member
Where in The Book of Mormon or Bible does it teach humans have no Beginning ?
brotherofJared
Well-known member
For one, Kolob is a star and we don't believe anyone lives on Kolob. If you're going to make fun of someone's beliefs at least get it right. That way you'll at least sound like you know what you're talking about.
Second, we don't teach anything about sexual relations between God and Mary. If there are some Mormons who believe that they did, so what? We can't dictate what people believe.
Here's the plain and simple evidence. If Jesus was human and Mary was human, then biologically speaking, whoever the father was, He was also human. That's simple biology. Humans cannot produce offspring, especially human offspring, with any other species. That's a fact.
We know how to get a woman pregnant without sexual intercourse. Certainly, God must know how to do it, right? The point of any argument about how Mary got pregnant by anyone in our church is that the Father of Jesus had human DNA. It's that simple.
brotherofJared
Well-known member
It should make you sick. It would make me sick too if I found out that no one in my church had authority from God to do anything, not even teach, much less baptize. In fact, if I were running a church like yours, I'd make up a story about how Baptism wasn't necessary and that authority is something I could give myself.
brotherofJared
Well-known member
Huh? Where would you get the idea that we would consider that Jesus had a similar position?
What do you mean by category? Do you mean a different species? If so, no, we believe He was 100% human.
Richard7
Well-known member
Kolob the nearest star unto God... yep, good doctrine...
Richard7
Well-known member
That is not the basis for the Plan of Salvation... Faith, Repentance, Baptism, Gift of the Holy Ghost and endure to the end...
Richard7
Well-known member
Bingo, because its true. How do evangelicals explain the how of the Virgin Birth?
We are not told what we have to believe or not believe... except for the true Plan of Salvation there are many mysteries we don't know...
Greetings again brotherofJared and Richard7,
Matthew 1:20–21 (KJV): 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Luke 1:34–35 (KJV): 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
You may not be interested, but it is some 30 years since I have had an interaction with some Mormons. Two young "elders" visited and stated that they existed before their birth, and when I did not accept this, then that was about the end of the encounter and they left and did not return. Another encounter that I had earlier was at work, and an Engineer in our office spoke to me and said that he was "The Bishop of Newcastle" (NSW Australia). I was surprised by the claim and he did not explain what he meant and I only found out later that he was a member of the Reformed LDS Church.
I decided to read a book in my personal library "Mormonism - A Historical and Scriptural Analysis" by Forrest Brinkerhoff and have completed Section 1:
Introduction pages 5-6
Introduction to Section 1 page 7
Chapter 1: The History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints pages 8-14
Chapter 2: The Prophet in the Mormon Church pages 15-18
Chapter 3: The Witnesses and What They Witnessed To pages 19-20
Chapter 4: Is the Mormon Picture of Joseph Smith Accurate? pages 21-28
Chapter 5: Are Mormon Writings Reliable? pages 29-33
Chapter 6: The Mormon View of the Bible pages 34-35
Chapter 7: Is the Mormon Church the First Century Church Restored? pages 36-39
Now I could ask you about some of the things that he claims are facts, but I will leave these, for now at least. A couple of items that he mentioned that seem to be correct are:
The hierarchy of the Mormon Church is different to the Apostolic Ekklesia(s)
The concept of the Aaronic Priesthood, and also the Melchizedek Priesthood (which he also says was introduced later in the Mormon Church)
The appointment of teenagers as "Elders", while the NT example appears to be older members.
The citation, or copying of portions of the KJV into the Book of Mormon, including some KJV errors or poor renditions of the Hebrew (I now have a list of at least some of these Isaiah and Book of Mormon portions)
The Book of Mormon is different today than the 1831 edition, having undergone many changes and corrections (If only we had the original autograph copies of the OT and NT Scriptures instead of manuscripts, and with some variations in these)
Kind regards
Trevor
I believe that Jesus was 100% human, but comparing your comments in the earlier Post I am surprised at what you mean by this:
I believe that Jesus was 100% human because God the Father was the father of Jesus by means of the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus did not have a human father.
Matthew 1:20–21 (KJV): 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Luke 1:34–35 (KJV): 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
You may not be interested, but it is some 30 years since I have had an interaction with some Mormons. Two young "elders" visited and stated that they existed before their birth, and when I did not accept this, then that was about the end of the encounter and they left and did not return. Another encounter that I had earlier was at work, and an Engineer in our office spoke to me and said that he was "The Bishop of Newcastle" (NSW Australia). I was surprised by the claim and he did not explain what he meant and I only found out later that he was a member of the Reformed LDS Church.
I decided to read a book in my personal library "Mormonism - A Historical and Scriptural Analysis" by Forrest Brinkerhoff and have completed Section 1:
Introduction pages 5-6
Introduction to Section 1 page 7
Chapter 1: The History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints pages 8-14
Chapter 2: The Prophet in the Mormon Church pages 15-18
Chapter 3: The Witnesses and What They Witnessed To pages 19-20
Chapter 4: Is the Mormon Picture of Joseph Smith Accurate? pages 21-28
Chapter 5: Are Mormon Writings Reliable? pages 29-33
Chapter 6: The Mormon View of the Bible pages 34-35
Chapter 7: Is the Mormon Church the First Century Church Restored? pages 36-39
Now I could ask you about some of the things that he claims are facts, but I will leave these, for now at least. A couple of items that he mentioned that seem to be correct are:
The hierarchy of the Mormon Church is different to the Apostolic Ekklesia(s)
The concept of the Aaronic Priesthood, and also the Melchizedek Priesthood (which he also says was introduced later in the Mormon Church)
The appointment of teenagers as "Elders", while the NT example appears to be older members.
The citation, or copying of portions of the KJV into the Book of Mormon, including some KJV errors or poor renditions of the Hebrew (I now have a list of at least some of these Isaiah and Book of Mormon portions)
The Book of Mormon is different today than the 1831 edition, having undergone many changes and corrections (If only we had the original autograph copies of the OT and NT Scriptures instead of manuscripts, and with some variations in these)
Kind regards
Trevor
brotherofJared
Well-known member
I realize that u might not agree with me, but it would be impossible for Jesus to be 100% human if his father wasn't human.
Richard7
Well-known member
Never studied Ekklesia(s)
More than a concept or idea! It was introduced around 1835.... Priesthood is denoted as power and authority, even Adam our first earthly father had the Priesthood of God...
“Daniel in his seventh chapter speaks of the Ancient of Days; he means the oldest man, our Father Adam, Michael; he will call his children together and hold a council with them to prepare them for the coming of the Son of Man [see Daniel 7:9–14]. He (Adam) is the father of the human family, and presides over the spirits of all men, and all that have had the keys must stand before him in this grand council. … The Son of Man stands before him, and there is given him glory and dominion. Adam delivers up his stewardship to Christ, that which was delivered to him as holding the keys of the universe, but retains his standing as head of the human family. Jospeh Smith.
Its believed by many scholars that the original apostles were young, even some could have been of teenage years...
How old were the disciples of Jesus when they joined him?
Answered by Bible Q · 5 November 2011 · 0 CommentsThe Bible does not say explicitly, but there are a few hints that at least some of them were relatively young — probably teenagers or in their early 20s.
In Jewish tradition, a young man began following a Rabbi between the ages of 12 and 30, and usually when he was less than 20. So that would make most of the apostles teenagers when Jesus called them to follow him.
Another relevant fact is that John lived until at least AD96 when Revelation was written, which is 66 years after Jesus died. That suggests that John was almost certainly a teenager when he joined Jesus.
Matthew 17:24-27
may provide further evidence. Here, Jesus and Peter pay the temple tax which was required to be paid by every man aged 20 years and older (Exodus 30:13-14). The other disciples were there (see preceding verses), but do not seem to have paid the tax. Perhaps they were young enough to be exempt from paying it, and so were still teenagers.We know that a few of them had established jobs including being a fisherman (Peter, Andrew, James and John) or tax-collector (Matthew). But as Jewish schooling normally finished at age 12, there would have been time for them to learn these trades and still join Jesus at a young age.
A closer look at these duplicate Isaiah texts actually provides us an additional witness of the Book of Mormon's authenticity
A closer look at these duplicate texts actually provides us an additional witness of the Book of Mormon's authenticity.[15] One verse (2 Nephi 12:16), is not only different but adds a completely new phrase: "And upon all the ships of the sea." This non-King James addition agrees with the Greek (Septuagint) version of the Bible, which was first translated into English in 1808 by Charles Thomson. It is also contained in the Coverdale 1535 translation of the Bible.[16] Such a translation was "rare for its time."[17]John Tvedtnes has also shown that many of the Book of Mormon's translation variants of Isaiah have ancient support.[18]
This throws a huge wrench into any critic's theories that Joseph Smith merely cribbed off of the King James Isaiah. Why would Joseph Smith crib the KJV including all of its translation errors but then go to the trouble of finding the one phrase, "upon all the ships of the sea", from the Greek Septuagint and 1535 Coverdale Bible and make sure that his translation of Isaiah had support from ancient renderings of Isaiah as well? It's obviously possible that he did, but highly unlikely.
Fair Mormon
How much have you researched this issue?
Critics of the Church have charged that the Book of Mormon is a fraud because thousands of changes have been made in it over the years, as if the Church were trying to cover up blunders in Joseph Smith's work. Certainly there have been many minor changes in the text of the Book of Mormon, as there have been in the text of the King James Version of the Bible (and other translations as well) over the years. These changes have been minor, usually trivial, primarily dealing with punctuation, correction of typographical errors, and modification of awkward grammar for clarity. I have examined the allegedly most "serious" changes pointed to by critics and have not seen anything representing a real change in doctrine or anything that would cast doubt on the origins of the Book of Mormon. I'll discuss major examples below.
In the early 1800s, spelling and grammar were not yet standardized. Joseph dictated the translation to scribes who spelled many words in ways that are nonstandard today. Hundreds of spelling variants had to be corrected in the first edition and in subsequent editions of the printed text. For example, "ware sorraful" in 1 Nephi 7:20 was changed to "were sorrowful." Likewise, we should not be outraged to find Nephi writing on "plates" today when Joseph's scribes had him writing on "plaits" in 1 Nephi 13:23. Hundreds of such changes have been necessary.
LDSFAQ: Changes in the Book of Mormon
CrowCross
Well-known member
From what I read they say....Kolob is a star or planet described in the Book of Abraham.
Hey, it's what some of you mormons teach. What can I say.
So, a human got Mary pregnant?
You might think.....what's the mormon account of how the "dna" impregnated Mary.
As I have been told the man from Kolob impregnated her.
CrowCross
Well-known member
It's hard to know mormon doctrine. Every mormon seems to have their own account.