DiscussMormonism.com

maklelan wrote:I think the best definition of a deity from the time of the Bible would be any entity that exercised divine agency. What is significant about this is that that agency could extend to any entity, be it a preternatural being, a human, or even a cultic object. In all the countries of the ancient Near East, you have cultic objects called deities and even offered worship. They are connected with some prototypical deity from the heavens.

Maklelan, I was hoping to interject a request for clarification here. I think the main line of your argument is quite secure as seen from my own limited understanding.You do come off as a bit rushed as if trying to put out a multitude of small fires popping up. I see a certain amount of noncommunication in this thread resulting from people using different definitions of the word God. I can see that the common meaning of God for people in the past thousand years in the West is not the same as how people used the word in Biblical time. Post Nicea (and to an extend before) the word God is not detached from the idea of ultimate authority and source of power. I understand that you are pointing out that the word is just not used with that meaning in the Bible.

It might help us readers if you clarified this definition of the word god which you proposed above. What do you mean by divine agency"? I do not know the meaning of divine agency except through a definition of God or divine.

Your comment may have been more focused upon pointing out the relation between a God and a cultic object may be understood to apply to instances in Biblical worship as well as worship done by outsiders with their foreign gods. I think I got that. I am still hoping for a clearer version of divine agency.

maklelan wrote:

sr1030 wrote:I guess I have to narrow this down some with another statement and question.

maklelan wrote:"In order to make clear exactly what semantic region of these words I am shackling Christ to."

It is not clear what you mean by this to me. But I don't have to know, obviously your intent is to avoid the contradiction with Christ's teaching and the LDS doctrine on the plurality of gods.

sr1030 wrote:To believe there is only one true and living God would mean that you believe there is no other true, real or genuine God in existence.

maklelan wrote:That does not follow.

So here we are, you have admitted that Christ taught that there is only one true, real or genuine God. Are you now denying that this is true? John 17:3, you can easily study this yourself and take as much time as you need. Christ clearly taught that there is only one true, real or genuine God. You are bringing to this additions or disclaimers to allow more than one God to exist. Christ did not allow for that.

sr1030 wrote:Is this the case? Do you believe in the existence of other Gods or gods? Emphasis on Existence. This could be Gods with less authority, less power etc.

Do you agree that to be considered a "follower of Christ" or "Christian", one would have to follow the teachings of Christ?

For example, I would gouge out my eye if I truly believed that my salvation depended on it. But it doesn't, at least not at this point. It just seems like whenever you refer to some other teachings of Christ it is a distraction.

maklelan wrote:So you bark about how someone has to believe all of Christ's teachings, and then when someone brings up a teaching in which you clearly do not believe, suddenly his teachings are just a distraction?

So I bark now? Can you please avoid the insults?

I told you I clearly believe the teachings by Christ. Including your reference about gouging out eyes. Now can you quit trying to distract things by moving away from John 17:3 before we are finished?

sr1030 wrote:If I could not follow all the teachings of Christ, I would not consider myself a Christian or follower of Christ. But there again, this is distracting.

maklelan wrote:Because it undermines your point. Your eyes and your hands have obviously sinned, and yet you refuse to cut them off. Why do you not believe in Jesus' teachings?

See above, I do believe in the teachings of Christ. All of them. But that has nothing to do with you or LDS in general, why do you keep trying to move into what I do or do not believe?

sr1030 wrote:I believe that we have established that:

1) you believe that Christ taught that there is only one true, real or genuine God.
2) you believe in the existence of other Gods or gods other than the Eternal Father, that may not have progressed as much as the Eternal Father, or are less powerful etc. but do exist.

You have confirmed number 1, I wish you to confirm number 2

maklelan wrote:I wish you to stop trying to play semantic games that you don't even understand.

I think it is you who does understand that you have a contradiction between the teachings of Christ and LDS doctrine. There are no games here and I hope you continue to keep any anger you may have under control.

sr

Megacles wrote:SR1030,

Surely you agree that when dealing with the Bible, we are not discussing a simplistic text. This tome has been around for thousands of years, and has been debated for centuries.

I know the history of the Bible.

sr1030 wrote:I guess I have to narrow this down some with another statement and question. To believe there is only one true and living God would mean that you believe there is no other true, real or genuine God in existence. Is this the case? Do you believe in the existence of other Gods or gods? Emphasis on Existence. This could be Gods with less authority, less power etc.

Megacles wrote:We worship God the Father, his son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. No other God (if they exist) matters.

If you believe in the existence of any other real or genuine God, it does matter. That is the discussion we have been having. Christ's teaching was clear. There are no other true, real or genuine Gods.

Megacles wrote:The church has no official doctrine (to my knowledge) of other gods, but it seems logical that there would be since being exalted means that we can become like God. There is way too much we do not know for me to answer this question with certainty, but again it matters very little.

The original request was to only quote from the Bible. I have tried to stick to that. It appears you are saying that the LDS Church has no official doctrine on how many Gods there may be, but all LDS believe it is probable that there are other Gods. This is contrary to the teachings of Christ, therefore those LDS that do believe in the plurality of Gods are not Christian.

sr1030 wrote:For example, I would gouge out my eye if I truly believed that my salvation depended on it. But it doesn't, at least not at this point.

Megacles wrote:Okay, so where does the Bible state that certain teachings of Jesus are essential to salvation while certain others are not? Can you just pick and choose which ones you want to follow?

Are you guys reading from a script and got lost? I said I do believe ALL the teachings of Christ, I am not picking and choosing anything, but this isn't about me. Why do you want to make this about me?

sr1030 wrote: It just seems like whenever you refer to some other teachings of Christ it is a distraction. If I could not follow all the teachings of Christ, I would not consider myself a Christian or follower of Christ. But there again, this is distracting.

sr1030 wrote:I believe that we have established that:

1) you believe that Christ taught that there is only one true, real or genuine God.

Megacles wrote:Correct, his father God the Eternal Father.

So you say that is correct here, but would still say there is possibly more true, real or genuine Gods. Why do you contradict yourself like this?

sr1030 wrote:2) you believe in the existence of other Gods or gods other than the Eternal Father, that may not have progressed as much as the Eternal Father, or are less powerful etc. but do exist.

You have confirmed number 1, I wish you to confirm number 2

sr

Megacles wrote:I believe it is certainly possible, but that we do not know the nature of other celestial beings well enough to make a judgement. (Are angels gods? Are demons gods? Are exalted beings gods? Are we gods (Psalm 82:6)?)

[/quote]

Anything can be called a god or God, but it doesn't make it true, real or genuine.

sr

sr1030 wrote:I know the history of the Bible.

As do I.

sr1030 wrote:If you believe in the existence of any other real or genuine God, it does matter. That is the discussion we have been having. Christ's teaching was clear. There are no other true, real or genuine Gods.

1) With such a strict, literal reading of Jesus' teachings, why do all of the traditional Christians I know still have both hands, feet, and eyeballs?
2) Where does Jesus say that all his teachings must literally be followed in order for a church to call itself Christian?

sr1030 wrote:The original request was to only quote from the Bible. I have tried to stick to that. It appears you are saying that the LDS Church has no official doctrine on how many Gods there may be, but all LDS believe it is probable that there are other Gods. This is contrary to the teachings of Christ, therefore those LDS that do believe in the plurality of Gods are not Christian.

It is in harmony with the Bible, Sr1030, as Maklelan has repeatedly demonstrated. To adhere to such a literal interpretation of that single teaching of Christ is to reject the rest of the Bible.

sr1030 wrote:Are you guys reading from a script and got lost? I said I do believe ALL the teachings of Christ, I am not picking and choosing anything, but this isn't about me. Why do you want to make this about me?

Do you find it difficult to open a jar of pickles without hands and eyes?

sr1030 wrote: It just seems like whenever you refer to some other teachings of Christ it is a distraction. If I could not follow all the teachings of Christ, I would not consider myself a Christian or follower of Christ. But there again, this is distracting.

sr1030 wrote:
So you say that is correct here, but would still say there is possibly more true, real or genuine Gods. Why do you contradict yourself like this?

There is only one God we worship, the God of this universe, God the Father. That is all we care about. Though it might be fun to speculate, everything else is just speculation.

sr1030 wrote:2) you believe in the existence of other Gods or gods other than the Eternal Father, that may not have progressed as much as the Eternal Father, or are less powerful etc. but do exist.

You have confirmed number 1, I wish you to confirm number 2

sr

I cannot confirm that, because I do not know. The church takes no official position on it. It is probable, in my opinion, but anything other than speculation would be an argument from ignorance. I am not prepared to make that fallacious argument.

sr1030 wrote:Anything can be called a god or God, but it doesn't make it true, real or genuine.
sr

Yes, and in the Bible, the Psalmist called us gods. It is in the Bible.

Where in the Bible does it state that the belief or acceptance of the possibility of other celestial beings discounts one from Christianity?

Megacles wrote:

sr1030 wrote:If you believe in the existence of any other real or genuine God, it does matter. That is the discussion we have been having. Christ's teaching was clear. There are no other true, real or genuine Gods.

Megacles wrote:1) With such a strict, literal reading of Jesus' teachings, why do all of the traditional Christians I know still have both hands, feet, and eyeballs?

Do you really think this statement is relevant? I find it ridiculous to say the least. Why are you talking about "traditional Christians"? To avoid the contradiction?

Megacles wrote:2) Where does Jesus say that all his teachings must literally be followed in order for a church to call itself Christian?

Silly. Where did Jesus mention Joseph Smith by name? Don't you think Smith would have been important enough to mention by name?

sr1030 wrote:The original request was to only quote from the Bible. I have tried to stick to that. It appears you are saying that the LDS Church has no official doctrine on how many Gods there may be, but all LDS believe it is probable that there are other Gods. This is contrary to the teachings of Christ, therefore those LDS that do believe in the plurality of Gods are not Christian.

Megacles wrote:It is in harmony with the Bible, Sr1030, as Maklelan has repeatedly demonstrated. To adhere to such a literal interpretation of that single teaching of Christ is to reject the rest of the Bible.

Maklelan has yet to demonstrate anything.

sr1030 wrote:Are you guys reading from a script and got lost? I said I do believe ALL the teachings of Christ, I am not picking and choosing anything, but this isn't about me. Why do you want to make this about me?

Megacles wrote:Do you find it difficult to open a jar of pickles without hands and eyes?

Very immature.

sr1030 wrote: It just seems like whenever you refer to some other teachings of Christ it is a distraction. If I could not follow all the teachings of Christ, I would not consider myself a Christian or follower of Christ. But there again, this is distracting.

sr1030 wrote:
So you say that is correct here, but would still say there is possibly more true, real or genuine Gods. Why do you contradict yourself like this?

Megacles wrote:There is only one God we worship, the God of this universe, God the Father.

That isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not there are more Gods than one, as Christ stated.

Megacles wrote:That is all we care about. Though it might be fun to speculate, everything else is just speculation.

You must know that it is more than speculation, that it was historically taught as doctrine in the LDS church.

sr1030 wrote:Anything can be called a god or God, but it doesn't make it true, real or genuine.
sr

Megacles wrote:Yes, and in the Bible, the Psalmist called us gods. It is in the Bible.

I know what is in the Bible.

Megacles wrote:Where in the Bible does it state that the belief or acceptance of the possibility of other celestial beings discounts one from Christianity?

Is this the best you can do? Go back and read the actual arguments and statements for your answer.

sr

Sr1030,

Is it really your strategy to hang on to one verse out of the entire Bible as the definitive verse by which churches and people shall be judged Christian? That is silly, since John 17:3 does not say what you apparently think it says:

John 17:3 wrote:And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

(emphasis mine)

Mormons believe in and worship God the Eternal Father, as well as his son Jesus Christ, precisely as the verse says.

sr1030 wrote:If you believe in the existence of any other real or genuine God, it does matter. That is the discussion we have been having. Christ's teaching was clear. There are no other true, real or genuine Gods.

Megacles wrote:1) With such a strict, literal reading of Jesus' teachings, why do all of the traditional Christians I know still have both hands, feet, and eyeballs?

Megacles wrote:Do you really think this statement is relevant? I find it ridiculous to say the least.

You find it ridiculous because it undermines your entire argument about believing in and following all the teachings of Jesus. Instead, you pick one verse out of the entire ministry of Jesus (out of the entire Bible, as well) and use it to define who is and is not Christian. That is ridiculous to say the least.

sr1030 wrote:Why are you talking about "traditional Christians"? To avoid the contradiction?

Traditional Christians, also called creedal Christians, are those who adhere to the extra-biblical creeds of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and/or 5th centuries CE.

Megacles wrote:2) Where does Jesus say that all his teachings must literally be followed in order for a church to call itself Christian?

sr1030 wrote:Silly. Where did Jesus mention Joseph Smith by name? Don't you think Smith would have been important enough to mention by name?

It is only silly because it undermines your argument. Your followup question is meaningless--when did Jesus mention any of the reformers?

sr1030 wrote:Maklelan has yet to demonstrate anything.

And now I see that you are not taking this conversation seriously at all. Either you have not read Maklelan's posts or you have chosen to ignore them. In either case, this demonstrates someone who is not a seeker of truth, but a seeker of petty sectarianism.

sr1030 wrote:Are you guys reading from a script and got lost? I said I do believe ALL the teachings of Christ, I am not picking and choosing anything, but this isn't about me. Why do you want to make this about me?

Megacles wrote:Do you find it difficult to open a jar of pickles without hands and eyes?

sr1030 wrote:Very immature.

It is easier to simply dismiss my arguments than to actually address them, I guess.

sr1030 wrote:That isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not there are more Gods than one, as Christ stated.

The verse talks about two separate entities: God the Father and Jesus Christ. You have it wrong, I am afraid.

Megacles wrote:That is all we care about. Though it might be fun to speculate, everything else is just speculation.

sr1030 wrote:You must know that it is more than speculation, that it was historically taught as doctrine in the LDS church.

Yes, we tend to be open minded about such things. That does not discount LDS from Christianity as has been clearly shown.

sr1030 wrote:I know what is in the Bible.

I am beginning to doubt this, sr1030.

Megacles wrote:Where in the Bible does it state that the belief or acceptance of the possibility of other celestial beings discounts one from Christianity?

sr1030 wrote:Is this the best you can do? Go back and read the actual arguments and statements for your answer.

sr

Again, I am sure it is easier to simply dismiss my arguments than to address them. Oh well.

Megacles,

Mormons define Christ's saving sacrifice differently to the rest of Christianity.
3 We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
(Articles of Faith)

Which, basically, states that Christ's Atonement only saves those who become Mormons.

Megacles wrote:Sr1030,

Is it really your strategy to hang on to one verse out of the entire Bible as the definitive verse by which churches and people shall be judged Christian? That is silly, since John 17:3 does not say what you apparently think it says:

John 17:3 was just a start. It was not dealt with by LDS on this thread yet, though there was agreement that Christ indicated that there was only one (1) true, real or genuine God.

Christ's statement indicated that it is not just one God "that matters or is worshiped", but only one (1) exists. I could show commentaries that state the following, but do not want to deviate from the original request to stick with only the Bible. The jest of the commentaries based on the Greek:

1) Of God in contrast to other gods, who are not real

2) Opposed to what is fictitious, counterfeit, imaginary, simulated, pretended

3) Pertaining to being real and not imaginary ... 'that they may know you, the only one who is really God' .

This is a very clear teaching of Christ and according to the Doctrines of the LDS Church, they do not follow this teaching. This, therefore, would have the LDS Church as a non-Christian church.

LDS need to deal with this scripture and not talk about gouging eyes or cutting off hands. That has nothing to do with the LDS denying this particular teaching of Christ. At best you would show that other churches that claim to be Christian are not in fact Christian. You are offering nothing but a red herring.

sr

maklelan wrote:

madeleine wrote:Idolatry, the belief that a deity inhabits an object, is forbidden by the God of Israel,

Yes, beginning in the exilic period. Would you like to challenge me on this, or are you just going to ignore my concern and continue to assert the above over and over again, like you're currently doing with the claim about Jesus saying there's only one true God?

The Law was given to Moses. See Exodus.

madeleine wrote:yet we see over and over examples of individuals and groups who adopt pagan idolatry beliefs and practices. So we see over and over exhortations and teachings that denounce man made objects as empty. Nothing but wood, stone and metal.

In the context of this thread, I see you making an argument that the errors of idolatry beliefs and practices indicates a truth about God that we should follow, if we are true Christians.

What I'm saying is, Christians see the errors and don't follow them.

A context of 1 Cor is Justin Martyr,

Justin Martyr wrote almost 75 years after 1 Corinthians was written. Justin Martyr is not the context of 1 Corinthians in any way, shape, or form.

He shows continuity of belief. You have no evidence for the change you are trying to exert over the text or religion. It isn't there.

madeleine wrote:who makes a similar argument. That is, pagan gods are demons masquerading as God.

Not only does Martyr's rhetoric have absolutely nothing to do with 1 Corinthians' argument, but you're equivocating with your use of the word "God." What you mean is "gods," with a little "g." Martyr is trying to align Christianity with Greco-Roman cosmology to make it more palatable to the intelligentsia of the day. However, Justin Martyr also calls Jesus "another god," and insists his unity with the Father is one of will. Nowhere does he suggest any ontological identity. Jesus is a separate divine being in Martyr's view. You're not going to find help by appealing to Martyr.

Justin has a beautiful apology on the Logos, which shows a trinitarian understanding of God. Found in the dialogue with Tryphos...a Jew.

madeleine wrote:There is an ancient Christian understanding, but I'm not seeing that you acknowledge.

I have spent far more time studying the ancient Christian understanding of deity than you, so save your attempts to condescend.

I see no Christian understanding whatsoever. Dismissal of Christian writing as irrelevant. So, there is no condescension, there is observation of a person living 2000 years later, rewriting history to suit belief.

madeleine wrote:The Law was given to Moses. See Exodus.

Completely irrelevant.

madeleine wrote:What I'm saying is, Christians see the errors and don't follow them.

Completely irrelevant.

madeleine wrote:He shows continuity of belief. You have no evidence for the change you are trying to exert over the text or religion. It isn't there.

Completely false. As I have shown, Martyr actually shows a completely different view of God's relationship to Jesus.

madeleine wrote:Justin has a beautiful apology on the Logos, which shows a trinitarian understanding of God. Found in the dialogue with Tryphos...a Jew.

Completely irrelevant. None of this changes the fact that Martyr quite explicitly describes Jesus as another god.

madeleine wrote:I see no Christian understanding whatsoever.

Oh, I understand it quite well, I just know better than to accept it.

madeleine wrote:Dismissal of Christian writing as irrelevant. So, there is no condescension, there is observation of a person living 2000 years later, rewriting history to suit belief.

And yet you cannot even bring yourself to address any of my concerns. You can only assert that you're right and I'm wrong.

I am no longer interested in these threads. It's abundantly clear that there is absolutely nothing that can be done to get you all to engage at all a reading with which you disagree. You are concerned only with dogmatism and sectarianism, despite all I've tried to do to educate you. I am done here.