I have a question that remains unanswered:

[Wrangler]

Should of been: The LORD is Not a created angel.

Some denomination seems to advance this theory. It goes against the Book of Hebrews.

 

[Brakelite]

The archangel Michael is a top ranking angel

Are you not adding to the scripture by claiming something that isn't written? Yes, you are.

All angels were created - ALL of them

No argument with that.
I am sure you realize that the President, specifically your President, Mr Biden, is the commander in chief of the armed forces right. Tell me. Where in your constitution does it require that they president must be a soldier and carry a weapon?
Now tell me. Where does the Bible say that the archangel... Head of the angels... Must be an angel?

 

[Brakelite]

We are not at war with each other but at war against heresy - the spirit of error is the enemy

"head of angels" does not come close to "Lord of Hosts"
The archangel Michael is a top ranking angel just as their are ranks in an army.
We do not know how many angels were created by the Son of God and how many are archangels.
IMHO - Gabriel is also a archangel - we do not know for certain = imho.

We, my Brother who loves the Lord Jesus Christ, we can never and should never add to "God's words or take away from them".
I am not perfect and through my growth in learning i embraced correction made by Scripture - only by Scripture.

Here is the Evidence - if you reject this or submit this unto anything else, you will err in understanding.
John chapter 1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made.

All angels were created - ALL of them - there is not one Scripture that says angels are the Elohim of Genesis, Exodus and the Gospels.

The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His nature, upholding all things by His powerful word. After He had provided purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. So He became as far superior to the angels as the name He has inherited is excellent beyond theirs. 5For to which of the angels did God ever say:
“You are My Son; today I have become Your Father”?
Or again:
“I will be His Father, and He will be My Son” And again, when God brings His firstborn into the world,
He says:“Let all God’s angels worship Him.”

Now about the angels He says: “He makes His angels winds, His servants flames of fire.

”But about the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever,
and justice is the scepter of Your kingdom.

All angels worship the SON - archangels worship the SON, Gabriel and Michael worship the SON.

And please, you can cease and desist from feeling it necessary to continue to prove that Jesus is not an angel. No-one is claiming He is. No-one. In fact quite the opposite. Far be it from me to suggest such a thing, and nowhere will you find in any of my posts on this forum over the years claiming anything of the sort.

 

[David in NJ]

Are you not adding to the scripture by claiming something that isn't written? Yes, you are.

No argument with that.
I am sure you realize that the President, specifically your President, Mr Biden, is the commander in chief of the armed forces right. Tell me. Where in your constitution does it require that they president must be a soldier and carry a weapon?
Now tell me. Where does the Bible say that the archangel... Head of the angels... Must be an angel?

wow -lol x1000 now -
You really said this: " Where does the Bible say that the archangel..head of the angels... must be an angel?"

Whoever said that God must be God???
Whoever said that a lamb must be lamb and not a dog???
Whoever said that a man must be man and not a woman?
Whoever said that sin must be sin and not grace?
Whoever said that the Lord Jesus Christ is a angel(archangel) is way way off Scripture - way off.

Satan is the one who twists Scripture to change meanings and outcomes for his evil purposes.
Did you not read in Genesis how the serpent/devil twisted God's words just a little, just enough to bring the whole world into sin.

 

[BarneyFife]

All angels were created - ALL of them - there is not one Scripture that says angels are the Elohim of Genesis, Exodus and the Gospels.

Psalm 8:5 You made him a little lower than the angels; You crowned him with glory and honor.

Psalm 8:5 Parallel versions: For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

You made him a little
וַתְּחַסְּרֵ֣הוּ (wat·tə·ḥas·sə·rê·hū)
Conjunctive waw | Verb - Piel - Consecutive imperfect - second person masculine singular | third person masculine singular
Strong's 2637: To lack, need, be lacking, decrease

lower
מְּ֭עַט (mə·‘aṭ)
Adjective - masculine singular
Strong's 4592: A little, fewness, a few

than the angels;
מֵאֱלֹהִ֑ים (mê·’ĕ·lō·hîm)
Preposition-m | Noun - masculine plural
Strong's 430: gods -- the supreme God, magistrates, a superlative

you crowned him
תְּעַטְּרֵֽהוּ׃ (tə·‘aṭ·ṭə·rê·hū)
Verb - Piel - Imperfect - second person masculine singular | third person masculine singular
Strong's 5849: To encircle, to crown

with glory
וְכָב֖וֹד (wə·ḵā·ḇō·wḏ)
Conjunctive waw | Noun - masculine singular
Strong's 3519: Weight, splendor, copiousness

and honor.
וְהָדָ֣ר (wə·hā·ḏār)
Conjunctive waw | Noun - masculine singular
Strong's 1926: Magnificence, ornament, splendor

Just sayin' :)

 

[David in NJ]

Psalm 8:5 You made him a little lower than the angels; You crowned him with glory and honor.

Psalm 8:5 Parallel versions: For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

You made him a little
וַתְּחַסְּרֵ֣הוּ (wat·tə·ḥas·sə·rê·hū)
Conjunctive waw | Verb - Piel - Consecutive imperfect - second person masculine singular | third person masculine singular
Strong's 2637: To lack, need, be lacking, decrease

lower
מְּ֭עַט (mə·‘aṭ)
Adjective - masculine singular
Strong's 4592: A little, fewness, a few

than the angels;
מֵאֱלֹהִ֑ים (mê·’ĕ·lō·hîm)
Preposition-m | Noun - masculine plural
Strong's 430: gods -- the supreme God, magistrates, a superlative

you crowned him
תְּעַטְּרֵֽהוּ׃ (tə·‘aṭ·ṭə·rê·hū)
Verb - Piel - Imperfect - second person masculine singular | third person masculine singular
Strong's 5849: To encircle, to crown

with glory
וְכָב֖וֹד (wə·ḵā·ḇō·wḏ)
Conjunctive waw | Noun - masculine singular
Strong's 3519: Weight, splendor, copiousness

and honor.
וְהָדָ֣ר (wə·hā·ḏār)
Conjunctive waw | Noun - masculine singular
Strong's 1926: Magnificence, ornament, splendor

Just sayin' :)

Answer this question if you can: Who made Who What?

 

[BarneyFife]

Answer this question if you can: Who made Who What?

I'm just reading the Bible. :)

 

[Abaxvahl]

For example, LDS theology doesn’t spend time thinking “is this inside time or outside time”. That simply not a concept/question/framework that comes up, and if a normal person someone else ask it the first answer is “huh?”.

Why must there be such a limit?

I see none: God has the power to redeem a sinner to 100% white as snow. 100% a glorious as Him. And yes, of course a such a being will still praise God— that relationship of love never goes away. A father is always a father, and a Father always a Father.

I should have asked sooner what exactly you mean by “simplicity” here. The concept of the Creedal Trinity certainly makes lots of folks super confused.

I would disagree with such a jump in thinking. I am NOT a Creedal Trinitarian. I can’t accept the ideas of “substance” “outside time” “immaterial” etc. I don’t find them in scripture, and hence can’t accept them on principle. While I acknowledge & respect other people’s beliefs … honestly when those Creedal philosophy roads are followed further and further I get more and more uncomfortable and disagree.

The limit is that at least we become loving like God is, but God always is loving. It is impossible that we can become "always is loving" if we came into existence at one point, so that is a limit. That we even need redemption and will be redeemed and glorious shows a difference.

By "simplicity" I mean a lack of composition, not being made of parts like a human body, but just one thing. Something which has always existed must also be simple, and if simple there must be a simplicity of what it is/substance, which is why I think the concept of eternity resolves into simplicity. This is one of the ways all Classical Theists argue into a deity with specific traits.

So the root issue I see is not accepting any idea of God not thought to be seen in Scripture, where I lack understanding of this is because I do not see how one can even think about God without having such concepts and not reduce into some error, or even just fideism about said beliefs about God. Like did the God of Scripture begin to exist or did He always exist? If He always existed how can one not affirm immateriality and being beyond time? I fail to understand how one can avoid not ever affirming things about God not in Scripture, especially with the nature of reading, which is:

All reading is interpretation. In order to read a word you must simultaneously subjectively interpret it's meaning, which necessarily means applying your concepts of things into the text. When one considers for instance "imagine a pink elephant dancing on a blue and yellow ball on the top of the blood red moon," I simply manipulated concepts in your head already there into a picture that perhaps is new. But the foundations for your understanding are already within you not within the letters. Before seeing those letters you already had a pre-conceived interpretation as to what "imagine, pink, elephant, dancing, blue, yellow, ball, top, blood, red, and moon" were. I did not put them in you instead you applied them to my letters. Therefore just by reading it and considering the nature of reading you can see that by the act of you reading that sentence you added to what is there, and is not the Bible the same way?

So based on that I can not understand reluctance present in LDS theology of considering things further, and how does one even know they are considering things further? For instance, just by naming God as a Person with attributes to me Scripture speaks of what He is, which is His nature/substance. I do not think it is an addition to Scripture but just plainly stated in it. By saying that "through the Word all things came into being/came to pass" it excludes God from time-boundedness, it is not an addition and is therefore affirmed since anything that "came into being" or "came to pass" is by definition done in time.

So really the root is even deeper: how does one know what is and is not affirmed by Scripture? And does not this very question go beyond it? And this question is rightly asked according to me for I am a believer in "all in Tradition, all in Scripture," meaning that the totality of what I believe is materially present in Scripture so I have no problem only speaking of the Scriptures with no reference to anything else, every day I read and listen to them I learn more, all true philosophy is in it and everything worth knowing is known by it, I use it as a measuring stick to rule for or against all ideas.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Stating the obvious upfront: I respect your beliefs and your right to believe them. I do express points of disagreement here, but that’s in no ways meant as an attack on your or your beliefs.


In fact I really really like your posts. They are EXTREMELY thoughtful and well studied and a joy to engage with you.

The limit is that at least we become loving like God is, but God always is loving. It is impossible that we can become "always is loving" if we came into existence at one point, so that is a limit. That we even need redemption and will be redeemed and glorious shows a difference.

For me… honestly I find such to be limiting of Christ’s atonement. White as snow is white as snow. Reborn is reborn. It’s not “oh you’re white now, but it’s not as good”.

By "simplicity" I mean a lack of composition, not being made of parts like a human body, but just one thing. Something which has always existed must also be simple, and if simple there must be a simplicity of what it is/substance, which is why I think the concept of eternity resolves into simplicity. This is one of the ways all Classical Theists argue into a deity with specific traits.

Total disagreement there. No, I do find such supported by scripture, quite the opposite. (I’ll touch on this more below).

So the root issue I see is not accepting any idea of God not thought to be seen in Scripture, where I lack understanding of this is because I do not see how one can even think about God without having such concepts and not reduce into some error, or even just fideism about said beliefs about God. Like did the God of Scripture begin to exist or did He always exist? If He always existed how can one not affirm immateriality and being beyond time? I fail to understand how one can avoid not ever affirming things about God not in Scripture, especially with the nature of reading, which is:


All reading is interpretation. In order to read a word you must simultaneously subjectively interpret it's meaning, which necessarily means applying your concepts of things into the text. When one considers for instance "imagine a pink elephant dancing on a blue and yellow ball on the top of the blood red moon," I simply manipulated concepts in your head already there into a picture that perhaps is new. But the foundations for your understanding are already within you not within the letters. Before seeing those letters you already had a pre-conceived interpretation as to what "imagine, pink, elephant, dancing, blue, yellow, ball, top, blood, red, and moon" were. I did not put them in you instead you applied them to my letters. Therefore just by reading it and considering the nature of reading you can see that by the act of you reading that sentence you added to what is there, and is not the Bible the same way?


So based on that I can not understand reluctance present in LDS theology of considering things further, and how does one even know they are considering things further? For instance, just by naming God as a Person with attributes to me Scripture speaks of what He is, which is His nature/substance. I do not think it is an addition to Scripture but just plainly stated in it. By saying that "through the Word all things came into being/came to pass" it excludes God from time-boundedness, it is not an addition and is therefore affirmed since anything that "came into being" or "came to pass" is by definition done in time.


So really the root is even deeper: how does one know what is and is not affirmed by Scripture? And does not this very question go beyond it? And this question is rightly asked according to me for I am a believer in "all in Tradition, all in Scripture," meaning that the totality of what I believe is materially present in Scripture so I have no problem only speaking of the Scriptures with no reference to anything else, every day I read and listen to them I learn more, all true philosophy is in it and everything worth knowing is known by it, I use it as a measuring stick to rule for or against all ideas.

Things are considered, and considered deeply. But no matter how much we humans think about things, we are not God. We must also not extend beyond scripture & what God reveals. And when it comes to these specific Creedal philosophical points (“essence”, your definition of “simplicity”, “out side time …. To me that road leads to a picture of God that's somewhat akin to the Force from Star Wars: dispassionate, detached, nonphyiscal. Versus I read scripture and I see God whom bleeds. Whom is deeply involved in the world in every way. Whom feels every affliction, whom walks with man, whom cries.

 

[Abaxvahl]

Things are considered, and considered deeply. But no matter how much we humans think about things, we are not God. We must also not extend beyond scripture & what God reveals. And when it comes to these specific Creedal philosophical points (“essence”, your definition of “simplicity”, “out side time …. To me that road leads to a picture of God that's somewhat akin to the Force from Star Wars: dispassionate, detached, nonphyiscal. Versus I read scripture and I see God whom bleeds. Whom is deeply involved in the world in every way. Whom feels every affliction, whom walks with man, whom cries.

Thank you I like your post as well, as I have more accurately learned the LDS position directly rather than indirectly.

This last point I do want clarity on though: you do affirm that God has passions and is in a sense physical? Or is that just a comparison?

I do agree that when thinking of the divine nature in itself it leads to seeing and emphasizing the infinite gap between us and Him, which feels cold, but that is part of the reason I think the Son Incarnated and became man (along with many other reasons, such as communicating the divine goodness most directly to all things) to live as us and suffer with us, feeling every affliction, walking with man, and crying in a very literal sense (He is recorded as having done all of this). In fact because I do to some degree disregard chronology when it comes to the Incarnation it is why I think that God in the OT is shown as being like this, Christ is the singular Personal point of contact between the world and God, so that even in the OT He is the only way through which anyone knows or sees God, every theophany and revelation is a Christophany and revelation through Christ, which explains a lot of the "fleshly" language with which God is spoken of there (walking, being angry, changing, being grieved, being seen, etc). The Incarnation solves the problem of us relating to God, the "existential problem of evil" by which we feel alone and distant, and is the fulfillment of what St. Paul preached that "He is not very far from any of us."

Note on ignoring chronology: this is justified to me because statements in the NT do not make sense without it such as "no one has ever seen God but the Son who has revealed Him" yet "Moses and the Elders saw God," and other examples of the exclusive claims Jesus makes, which also happen in the OT, showing that He was active even then somehow. The exact nature of time I am not precisely show of myself and am currently studying, the one thing I do know though is that it isn't just linear.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Thank you I like your post as well, as I have more accurately learned the LDS position directly rather than indirectly.

This last point I do want clarity on though: you do affirm that God has passions and is in a sense physical? Or is that just a comparison?

I do agree that when thinking of the divine nature in itself it leads to seeing and emphasizing the infinite gap between us and Him, which feels cold, but that is part of the reason I think the Son Incarnated and became man (along with many other reasons, such as communicating the divine goodness most directly to all things) to live as us and suffer with us, feeling every affliction, walking with man, and crying in a very literal sense (He is recorded as having done all of this). In fact because I do to some degree disregard chronology when it comes to the Incarnation it is why I think that God in the OT is shown as being like this, Christ is the singular Personal point of contact between the world and God, so that even in the OT He is the only way through which anyone knows or sees God, every theophany and revelation is a Christophany and revelation through Christ, which explains a lot of the "fleshly" language with which God is spoken of there (walking, being angry, changing, being grieved, being seen, etc). The Incarnation solves the problem of us relating to God, the "existential problem of evil" by which we feel alone and distant, and is the fulfillment of what St. Paul preached that "He is not very far from any of us."

Note on ignoring chronology: this is justified to me because statements in the NT do not make sense without it such as "no one has ever seen God but the Son who has revealed Him" yet "Moses and the Elders saw God," and other examples of the exclusive claims Jesus makes, which also happen in the OT, showing that He was active even then somehow. The exact nature of time I am not precisely show of myself and am currently studying, the one thing I do know though is that it isn't just linear.

The God the Spirit is a person of Spirt.
Yes God the Son, Jesus Christ, once born of Mary had a mortal body- yes physical. After His resurrection, He still had/has a body. Yes a physical body, now glorified. And even before being born of Mary He did feel and was involved. Never dispassionate or detached.

For LDS Christens like myself, the difference between God & man isn't about metaphysics, but about the fact that I choose to sin. I'm a small minded selfish screw up sinner. Versus God is all loving, all righteous, all merciful, etc. I need Him so desperately.

 

[amadeus]

funny you mention that…i seem to have lost all of my “beliefs”
not sure when that happened, hmm

well, i dont mean that i no longer “believe” in Yah, but that i have more or less lost the rigid definition that i held for so long? Also, imo those examples are really about “having faith” pistis right? Which is to me different than “believing” even if they share a synonym

Go the all the way down to that very lowest room and then...?

"When thou art bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room; lest a more honourable man than thou be bidden of him;
And he that bade thee and him come and say to thee, Give this man place; and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room.
But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee.
For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." Luke 14:8-11

 

[Aunty Jane]

You don't see any mockery or patronizing in this at all? No veiled insults?

Persecution was the furthest thing from my mind.

Here's a page with a link to my posting history:
BarnyFife

See if you can find anything that indicates a persecution complex.

How can you persecute someone on a web forum? Every browser tab has a -close- button; every device has a power switch. No worries. As long as you remain perfectly confident and truthful, you are above any kind of scrutiny, right? The Bible has no other instruction on how to behave or treat people, right? Technical correctness is King. :)

On the other hand, the fruitage of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control, confidence(?), truthfulness(?).

OK...so it isn’t what I say, as much as the way I say it? Is that what I am understanding here?

My Aussie directness is what you are having trouble with.....for this I can only apologise.
I would see such questioning as a challenge, not an insult. I relish a challenge. It is not intended to be mean spirited as you seem to see it. I am challenging your beliefs.....not insulting you personally.

Are "confidence and truthfulness" unnecessary qualities for a Christian????

Cultural differences often happen between Aussies and Yanks....as I have admitted, many Americans find us rude, but all we are is direct and truthful. We are not used to tip-toeing around people’s fragile sensibilities. It’s not who we are. But all I can do is try not to offend you as I seem to be doing on a regular basis, because you take everything so personally.

Aussie humor is by nature a little confronting and sometimes sarcastic to some people, its just the "larrikin" in us (Google it)....but confidence and truthfulness will always be part of my speech......OK?

 

[Robert Gwin]

Jesus is in the Father and the Father is in Him

John 14:11
"Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves."

Jesus Christ is Lord

Luke 2:11
for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.

The Lord is the Spirit (referring to the Holy Spirit)

2 Corinthians 3:17
Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

The Lord is God.

Matthew 22:37-38
"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind'."

"The Lord God"

Luke 1:32-33
"He will be very great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David. And He will reign over Israel forever; His Kingdom will never end!”

Are we in agreement sir? Who is the Lord your God that Jesus said you must love with all your heart and soul and mind?

 

[Robert Gwin]

"Making up one God" is not Trinitarian doctrine, and "Yahweh/Jehovah" is not the name of the Father, either way, I suppose He lacked the Holy Spirit when He was conceived by Him, or when He literally breathed the Holy Spirit on the Apostles before His Ascension, but okay. The abuses of Scripture and misunderstandings of the Trinitarian position multiply and continue, it is a common theme in this thread.

What is the name of the Father Abax?

 

[Robert Gwin]

I’d never caught this before, what in your opinion would be the difference between the Holy Spirit and the Holy Ghost?


Acts 2:33 KJV
[33] Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

Word choice of the translator for the word Ruach/Pneuma

 

[Robert Gwin]

I don't understand this, then:

John 20:22 When He had said this, He breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit.

How could He give something He didn't have?

Jesus had died, and was appearing to his disciples at that time, he had previously stated:
(John 14:15-17) . . .“If you love me, you will observe my commandments. 16 And I will ask the Father and he will give you another helper to be with you forever, 17 the spirit of the truth,. . .
Jesus was just about ready to return to heaven, and their ministry soon would get started. The recorded fulfillment of his words is found in Acts chapter 2, which occurred on Pentecost of the year 33 CE.

Great question Barn, keep in mind the Bible never contradicts itself, so sometimes you might run into a seeming contradiction, therefore it is faith strengthening to search out the whys and wherefores.

 

[Robert Gwin]

Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
Given unto Him is “the preeminence” in looking up preeminence it is “Chief”, “Head” could be “High Priest”, exalted above every other name. “The preeminence” above all …kind of gives more clarity to Revelation 22:13 and
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: [10] That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; [11] And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Philippians 2:9-11

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

James 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. Galatians 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
‘that in all things he might have the preeminence’

Amen to that Vicky, above everything with the exception of God of course.

 

[Josho]

Are we in agreement sir? Who is the Lord your God that Jesus said you must love with all your heart and soul and mind?

Abba The Father, but this is what you got to understand the Lord God can be and is in multiple places at one time.

The Lord is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, when Mary gave birth to Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit, the power of the Father in Heaven, she gave birth to God in human form, Jesus Christ never sinned, in fact the disciples worshipped Jesus Christ as God.

Now coming back to my statement "God can be and is in multiple places at one time", while God was walking on earth as Jesus Christ, God was also sitting in the throne of Heaven as the Father in Heaven.

Let's look at this for an example.

Does God abandon one believer for another? No He is with us all. So He can and is in multiple places at one time.

 

[David in NJ]

What is the name of the Father Abax?

Oh, this is easy - Elohim(God) told us His Name in His Word.

God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ”
God also told Moses, “Say to the Israelites,
‘The LORD, the God of your fathers—the Elohim of Abraham, the Elohim of Isaac, and the Elohim of Jacob—has sent me to you.’
This is My name forever, and this is how I am to be remembered in every generation.

PLEASE do not miss out on the part that says: "This is My Name FOREVER - in EVERY generation."

There are three numbers for you to observe, they are 1,3,7 - these three numbers describe Who God is.