 |
Business Directory |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coupons |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Classifieds |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| | Author | Messages | |
DaybyDay
Posts:288
 | | 05/18/2008 11:18 AM |
 Alert | I think that leads to more ambiguity and sounds like this being has a multiple personality disorder.
What is sounds like is defensiveness, And maybe you should do some digging on your own. If what has been said isn't true, or at least cause for a pause and a second look, then why get defensive? These are things that LDS prophets have said and lived about polygamy, eternal life, Jesus Christ, God, heaven, Mary, virgin birth, salvation...what else hasn't been discussed in this thread. What hasn't been discussed is maybe baptism of the dead, or the belief that Jesus was married and multiple times married! ...But, these are things actually said and preached and lived by and it cannot be denied. All the Christians have been doing is coming back with Bible and saying this is what the Bible says....
| | | |
|
| | EEE
Posts:374
| | 05/18/2008 11:23 AM |
Alert | Piggybacking off of itsa's post. Here is an example of people who had a passion for God, but Paul was praying for their savlation: Rom 10:1 Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved.
Rom 10:2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.
Rom 10:3 For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness.
Rom 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. These people created their own way, and Paul is praying for their Salvation. Much like the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses who have shown their zeal for God, but they have created their own way. | |
Yeah, it's true- He allowed the fall of man/
But He used it now to exalt the Lamb/
The Lord, who's wise, permits existence of sin/
to be glorified in His forgiveness to men/ | |
|
| | itsadryheat
Posts:233
| | 05/18/2008 11:38 AM |
Alert | | Thanks EEE...in MY passion to share the Truth, I can forget about the people...and I think it is aparent that the folks who have posted here have a zeal for God. | | | |
|
| | Cactus Rob
Posts:1041
| | 05/18/2008 12:04 PM |
Alert | itsadryheat, Thanks for getting it right. I intended to type Revelation 22:18-20 | | | |
|
| | right_on_time
Posts:0
| | 05/18/2008 9:51 PM |
Alert | | I just think it's a bit rude to claim YOU know what someone is or isn't. | | | |
|
| | Cactus Rob
Posts:1041
| | 05/18/2008 11:37 PM |
Alert | I think you misinterpreted what I wrote. In my post I had hit a wrong key and typed Revelation 21:18-20. it'sadryheat quoted Revelation 22:18-20, which is what I intended to post.. After seeing itsadryheat's post, I realized I had typed chapter 21, not chapter 22 as I intended to, so I merely expressed my thanks to itsadryheat for getting the chapter and verses right. | | | |
|
|  | love@hm
Posts:486
| | 05/19/2008 8:52 AM |
Alert | Forgive me for stepping in. I have not followed everything, but there are a few things I would like to quickly clear up concerning the LDS belief. These are not debate issues - just things that have been posted by non-LDS that is not necessarily what we believe: Concerning the 3 degrees of Glory. We believe all 3 kingdoms will have a member of the Godhead who will visit them. Which one is based on what the people of that kingdom are willing to accept. NOT according to a lesser member of the Godhead - they may perform different tasks - but one is not worth any less than the other. Because God loves all of His children, He allows us to have access to Him in a way that is comfortable to us. The Celestial Kingdom is the highest kingdom. Those who dwell here have accepted Christ and His gospel. They have lived appropriately, have not been 'lazy in their faith'. They have been baptized and sealed to a spouse. God the Eternal Father dwells here. The Terrestrial Kingdom is the 2nd kingdom. It is for those who have accepted the gospel, but haven't necessarily been valiant. It is also for those who did not accept the gospel on earth (but had the opportunity), but DID accept it after death. Christ visits these people regularly. He teaches them. The Telestial Kingdom is the 1st or lowest kingdom. It is for those who have not accepted the gospel on earth or in the afterlife. These are people who choose to turn their back on Christ and live in sin. They will be visited regularly by the Holy Ghost. Outer darkness is reserved for those who commit the unpardonable sin. Denying the Holy Ghost - and KNOWING they deny it. This is to have NO presence of the God - or the Godhead. To say that we believe only the highest kingdom will be in the presence of God is true, when you consider God the Father will not be in the lower kingdoms, however it is also very false, when you consider a member of the Godhead will be to all of the kingdoms. On to Christ and marriage: We have no doctrine saying whether Christ has been married or not. To say that LDS members believe this is not completely true. You will find many speculations as to whether or not He was. BUT no one can say, "Christ was married." We do not have that knowledge. It is NOT DOCTRINE. I myself - feel it would make sense that Christ was married. I believe this, because He is our example in all things. We believe He was baptized in order to BE the example. With this reasoning it would also make sense that He would be married. HOWEVER - as I stated - this is NOT doctrine, and if the prophet stood up one day and announced Christ was never married - I would believe it. Also, as a bystander, I might say, everyone should step back and take a deep breath! There is a lot of defensiveness floating around on both sides. . . In and out, in and out, in and out! 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 close your eyes and feel the cool of the A/C. . . . ah, feel better? | | | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:413
| | 05/19/2008 9:41 AM |
Alert | Wow, this thread took on a life of its own over the weekend! All that’s missing is a post from RichTig about all of our imaginary friends. 
I’m mostly to blame for the trinity sub-thread within this thread, as I had originally asked itsa for clarification on this.
I can’t help but notice that none of the proponents of the trinity on this thread dealt with the non-Mormon scholarship on the trinity I had posted. Only the most sheltered fundamentalist regards the trinity as a biblical doctrine, most freely admit that it arose in councils centuries after the Apostolic Era and has more affinity with philosophical trends than the New Testament Text. There is even the “Johannine Comma,” which is a late forgery in the New Testament:
http://en.fairmormon.org/Godhead_and_the_Trinity
My reason was because the virgin conception of Christ has all three persons of the trinity actively involved. Self-styled “mainstream Christians” claim a belief that Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of the Father, but freak out at any possibility that this might in any way literally be so. Brigham Young’s frank literalness reflect the Victorian era in which he lived (he could conceive of only one way to beget, or father, somebody), but his emphasis was always on the literal divine parentage of Jesus, not on the mechanics that modern critics are so titillated over. Is the trinitarian view of the virgin birth really any better? You have one “person” of the trinity bringing about the pregnancy of a virgin, but all the persons are one being. Why is this somehow less “scandalous” than the Mormon view that the Father begat Jesus through the instrumentality of the Holy Ghost?
Church leader B.H. Roberts, responding publicly to a similar criticism from Protestant ministers, gave a humorous recap that may apply to what we see in this thread concerning the virgin birth:
One other item in which we offend these reverend gentlemen is that we believe Jesus had a Father as well as a mother. Now, gentlemen, honestly, is it any worse for him to have had a Father than it is for him to have had a mother? You concede that he had a mother; that his body grew as yours did, in the womb of his mother; that he came forth of the womb by birth pains; that he suckled at the breast of woman; that through the months and years of infant weakness he was watched and guided by the hand of a loving mother. Tell me, is it true, that in your philosophy of things it is all right for Jesus to have a mother, but a terrible sin and blasphemy to think of him as having a father? Is not fatherhood as sacred and holy as motherhood? Listen, people, there is something else. Having objected to our idea of Jesus having a father, these peculiarly pious gentlemen turn now and object to our faith because we believe that we have for our spirits a heavenly mother as well as a heavenly father! . . . We know we have a father to our spirits; but because we hold that the spirits of men have also a mother in heaven, as well as a father, behold these reviewers complain against us. Now, observe the peculiar position of these critics: It is all right for Jesus to have a mother; but it is all wrong for him to have a father. On the other hand, it is all right for men's spirits to have a Father in heaven, but our reviewers object to our doctrine of their also having a mother there. I sometimes wonder what in the world is the matter with you, gentlemen. I am puzzled to classify your views, or the kind of beings with which you people heaven.
(B.H. Roberts, “Defense of the Faith and the Saints,” [reprinted Provo: Maasai, 2002], p. 568).
I’ve commented on this before, but critics’ use of Mormon sources is exactly like Roberts described in the early 20th century as the “orchard” approach. This approach
is as one who walks through some splendid orchard and gathers here and there the worm-eaten, frost-bitten, wind-blasted, growth-stunted and rotten fruit, which in spite of the best of care is to be found in every orchard; bringing this to us he says: “This is the fruit of yonder orchard; you see how worthless it is; an orchard growing such fruit is ready for the burning.” Whereas, the fact may be that there are tons and tons of beautiful, luscious fruit . . . remaining in the orchard to which he does not call our attention at all. Would not such a representation of the orchard be an untruth, notwithstanding his blighted specimens were gathered from its trees? If he presents to us the blighted specimens of fruit from the orchard, is he not in truth and in honor bound also to call our attention to the rich harvest of splendid fruit that still remains ungathered before he asks us to pass judgment on the orchard?
(Defense of the Faith and the Saints, p. 48).
Critics, Roberts observed elsewhere, collect “the wind-beaten, blasted, mildewed, dwarfed, or shrunken fruit, and carefully raking this together, represent this as the fruit of the orchard” of Mormonism, while omitting the “scores of tons of beautiful, ripe, and perfect fruit that is a credit to the orchard and to the husbandman of it.” The overwhelming quantity of good fruit is “passed by, and you are asked to judge the orchard by the blasted specimens that have been raked together.” (Defense of the Faith and the Saints, pp. 657-658).
This is exactly what the critics on this thread have done with Brigham Young’s statements. They have copied-and-pasted statements from online anti-Mormon “ministries,” but being unfamiliar with the full context or breadth and depth of these statements, are ignorant of the many “orthodox” statements Brigham Young and his contemporaries have made. Journal of Discourses is a mammoth collection (over 10,000 pages in 26 volumes) of talks by Mormon leaders from 1851 to 1886, and critics’ mining of quotes to find “shocking statements is the embodiment of the “orchard” method described above. Here is a sampling of statements from Brigham Young and contemporaries that demonstrate belief in the virgin birth:
In the year 1850 I entertained one of my Baptist friends some two or three weeks. I could not persuade him to preach, but asked him a great many questions; and I found him just where I had left them years ago. I asked him questions with regard to the doctrines taught in the Bible. Could he answer them? No: he was as ignorant as a child of the great plan of salvation. Do you believe the Old and New Testament?" "Yes." I then asked him a few questions with regard to the coming forth of the Son of Man, as he is called in a few places. "Do you believe that he was born of the virgin Mary?—that he was the son of Mary?" "Yes." "Do you believe that the Apostle told the truth when he said that he was begotten by the Father?" "Yes." "Why do you dispute it, then, or throw a doubt upon it? Was he not flesh of our flesh and bone of our bone, if the history given of him is true?" "O yes." "Whom did he look and act like? and whose errand did he come to do?" I then turned and read—"Whoso hath seen me hath seen the Father," and inquired, "Do you believe that?" "Yes but I never before viewed the matter in the light it now appears." "Is he not the very express image and likeness of his Father in heaven? The Bible says he is. Do you believe the Bible?" "Yes." . . . I learned from my Baptist friend that his sect were just where I left them twenty-five years ago.
(Brigham Young, July 3, 1859. Journal of Discourses 7:7)
As Latter-day Saints we accept the words of the ancient Prophets and believe that they will be fulfilled literally. Has Jerusalem become a heap of ruins literally? Were the seed of Abraham in bondage and oppressed by the Egyptians literally? Were they delivered and brought out of that land with a high hand and with great power literally? Did God bring them literally into the land of Canaan, which he promised to Abraham? Have they been broken up and scattered from that land literally? Did the Savior come, born of a virgin, as the Prophets predicted, literally? Did he suffer for our sins and endure all that the Prophets had spoken of him literally? Did his enemies cast lots for his vesture and divide his garments among themselves literally? Were "the shepherd smitten and the sheep scattered" when Jesus was crucified literally? Yes, in all these particulars, history records, with the greatest minutiae, the literal fulfillment of prophecy. Was the house of the Lord thrown down and the very foundation thereof ploughed as a field, literally? Yes, then what reason have we to expect other than a literal fulfillment of the next part of the same prophecy, which foretells the establishment of the Lord's house in the tops of the mountains, the gathering of people from all nations thereunto, that the Lord will rebuke strong nations afar off, and that the nations will beat their swords into ploughshares, their spears into pruning hooks, that they will live at peace and learn war no more, and the Lord will reign over them, from henceforth, even forever?
(Erastus Snow, Journal of Discourses 16:204-205)
Holy men of God in former times had prophesied of him. Isaiah, for instance, had said—"Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel, which being interpreted, is 'God with us'" It is said of him that he came to take away sin by the sacrifice of himself, and a great many things were said and written of him in the holy Scriptures, before he came, while he lived upon the earth and after he left it and ascended up to his Father in heaven.
(John Taylor, Journal of Discourses 16:303)
Where did we exist before we came here? With God. Where does he exist? In the place John denominated heaven. What do we understand heaven to be? Not the place described by our Christian friends, beyond the bounds of time and space, for there is no such place, there never was, nor ever will be; but I mean a tangible world, a heaven that is perfect, a heaven with materials that have been organized and put together, sanctified and glorified as the residence and world where God resides. Born there? Yes, we were born there. Even our great Redeemer, whose death and sufferings we are this afternoon celebrating, was born up in yonder world before he was born of the Virgin Mary. Have you not read, in the New Testament, that Jesus Christ was the first-born of every creature?
(Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses 18:290-291)
In a conversation I once had with Baron Rothschild he asked me if I believed in the Christ? I answered him, "Yes, God has revealed to us that he is the true Messiah, and we believe in him." I further remarked, "Your Prophets have said, 'They shall look upon him whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his first-born,' 'And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thy hands? Then he shall answer, Those which I was wounded in the house of my friends.' "Do you think the Jewish Rabbies would refer you to such scripture as that? Said Mr. Rothschild, "Is that in our Bible?" "That is in your Bible, sir."
The Book of Mormon and the Bible refer to many other similar passages referring to the same event as well as passages referring to the Savior's birth. "Behold," says Isaiah, "a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Again the Savior says, "Abraham saw my day and was glad. Ancient people of God, in whose hearts was enkindled the flame of inspiration, looked forward to that memorable event when the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world would offer himself as a sacrifice, whilst we look back to the same thing. We break bread and eat, and we drink water in the presence of each other every Sabbath day, and we do it in remembrance of the broken body and shed blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ; and this we will continue to do until he comes again.
(John Taylor, Journal of Discourses 18:329-330)
Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, the Scriptures tell us; and she bare record of it, and there were many witnesses of this fact, and the record teaches us that he was begotten by the power of God, and not of man, and that she had no intercourse with mortal man in the flesh until after she gave birth to the Savior, who is called the Son of God . . . But Jesus was begotten by the power of and not by mortal in the flesh. And the New Testament tells us that God sent his angel to visit this beautiful Virgin Mary, and to make known unto her that she was chosen of the Lord to be the Mother of Jesus who should be the Savior of this people. And the messenger or the angel sent to her was designed to prepare her mind, her heart and her faith for this great work unto which the Lord had chosen her. And he said unto her, "The Holy Ghost shall come thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee, and therefore that Holy Thing that shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." This Jesus, therefore, partook of this divine nature; he partook also of the human, the mortal, through the mother.
(Erastus Snow, Journal of Discourses 19:271-272)
The point in all of these being that Mary was a virgin. She had not known man. She conceived Jesus through divine means, and Jesus was literally the Son of God, being the only Man on earth whose Father of His body and spirit was the Father. Everyone else is a spirit child of God with two mortal parents of our bodies. | | | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:413
| | 05/19/2008 9:42 AM |
Alert | Qwerty pretty much expressed my thoughts on the question of whether polygamy-era Mormon leaders taught that polygamy is necessary for exaltation. Some thoughts along these lines (thoughtfully provided by itsa from some anti-Mormon web site) from Brother Brigham pertain to those who were commanded to practice it. Page 1 of this thread contains the reactions of John Taylor, Brigham Young, and others to the commands they received to practice polygamy (they didn’t want to). Some were commanded to practice it and all who could were encouraged to practice it, but the indisputable fact remains that less than 20% of Mormons were ever involved in its practice during the polygamy era. It is a misrepresentation in the extreme, approaching the bearing of false witness, to cherry-pick and “mine” isolated quotes from Journal of Discourses off of anti-Mormon web sites to insist that polygamy was taught to be essential and non-negotiable for exaltation when this is, in fact, not what was taught. What was taught was that those who were commanded to engage in it would not be able to attain exaltation if they had refused to obey it. Had Abraham refused to offer up Isaac, or Hosea refused to marry multiple harlots, or [insert other examples of commanded obedience from God], they too would have forfeited their exaltation.
Interestingly, one of itsa’s proof-texts supplies the key to this, although itsa, not having actually gotten the proof-text through his or her own reading of the talk, couldn’t have known this. Just prior to the proof-text given, Brigham Young makes it clear that those who didn’t practice polygamy needed to “be polygamists at least in your faith, in direct contradiction to what itsa has been claiming. Clearly Brigham held out a way to exaltation for those who wouldn’t be able to practice polygamy: they would need to feel in their hearts that they would practice it if they could:
I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us. It may be hard for many, and especially for the ladies, yet it is no harder for them than it is for the gentlemen. It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory.
(Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 11:269
Happily, modern Bible inerrantists have shielded themselves from any life-disrupting commandments from God by their insistence on a closed canon. They won’t have to worry about any Abrahamic trials from God. | | | |
|
| | moinmoin
Posts:413
| | 05/19/2008 9:43 AM |
Alert | EEE:
Plus it becomes even clearer reading Jesus admit it himself. Read the whole book of John, and it's clear that Jesus is YAHWEH the God of the Old Testament. For example, He said he was the I AM the same name God used in the Old testament and the Jews started to stone him for claiming to be God.
As you know, Mormons believe that Jesus Christ was Jehovah of the Old Testament. Our difference is that we are not trinitarian, not that we don’t believe Jesus is Jehovah.
EEE:
We need to define some Terms. The Father , The Son, and The Holy Spirit are not 3 Beings, but rather 3 persons of the one Being who is God. Moinmoin's comment is nothing more than eisigesis of the text.
One man’s exegisis is another man’s eisigesis! As qwerty emphasized, all of these issues have to do with interpretation. Mormonism’s message to the world is that God has provided additional scripture that clarifies what the correct interpretation is, thus allowing one to navigate the confusion in non-Mormon Christianity once one has a witness through the Spirit that these scriptures are true and authentic.
Can you supply a New Testament passage that discusses, or even mentions, “the three persons of the one Being who is God?” 
itsadryheat:
This verse or the section of verses does not appear to be talking at all about degrees of glory.
What is your interpretation of Paul’s vision of “the third heaven?”
I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth) such an one caught up to the third heaven.
And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth)
How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.
(2 Corinthians 12:2-4)
DaybyDay:
These are things that LDS prophets have said and lived about polygamy, eternal life, Jesus Christ, God, heaven, Mary, virgin birth, salvation...what else hasn't been discussed in this thread. What hasn't been discussed is maybe baptism of the dead, or the belief that Jesus was married and multiple times married! ...But, these are things actually said and preached and lived by and it cannot be denied.
I hereby submit “moinmoin’s Law” to go alongside “Godwin’s Law” (first person in an online discussion to resort to calling his/her oppenent “Hitler or Nazi” in an argment loses):
In an online discussion involving Mormons, the probability that multiple, unrelated subjects will be thrown machine-gun style at a Mormon participant approaches 100% as the discussion continues | | | |
|
| | itsadryheat
Posts:233
| | 05/19/2008 6:20 PM |
Alert | Can anything be simple with you? -LOL! Are you kidding me with these answers?? I have no response right now because I am probably going to have to read them a few times just to sort them out. Gosh, the Bible is so much simpler.
| | | |
|
| | itsadryheat
Posts:233
| | 05/19/2008 6:31 PM |
Alert | I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth) such an one caught up to the third heaven.
And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth)
How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.
Paul was obviously touched by God in this experience. He may have had one of those "I died and then came back to life" expriences where he actually saw heaven. Maybe the third heaven reference is to show that he was above even the stars and moon, since most people think of the heavens and the stars, moon etc...I think the point of the section, in context v 1-6 is that this incredible thing happened to Paul. He saw Heaven. And it wasn't what people thought it was...it wasn't just the stars, moon, sky (heaven) but it was even above that. Maybe the he says "third" because he wants to stress that this is something no one has seen yet. Even, now with our technology into space...heaven is even above that! But the point is that this incredible thing happened to Paul, he saw heaven, but even then- he did not want to boast. I think not boasting is the point of this section of scripture. | | | |
|
| | itsadryheat
Posts:233
| | 05/19/2008 6:33 PM |
Alert | The Celestial Kingdom is the highest kingdom. Those who dwell here have accepted Christ and His gospel. They have lived appropriately, have not been 'lazy in their faith'. They have been baptized and sealed to a spouse. God the Eternal Father dwells here.
The Terrestrial Kingdom is the 2nd kingdom. It is for those who have accepted the gospel, but haven't necessarily been valiant. It is also for those who did not accept the gospel on earth (but had the opportunity), but DID accept it after death. Christ visits these people regularly. He teaches them.
The Telestial Kingdom is the 1st or lowest kingdom. It is for those who have not accepted the gospel on earth or in the afterlife. These are people who choose to turn their back on Christ and live in sin. They will be visited regularly by the Holy Ghost.
I only want one heaven. That is the one were the the King of Kings is and the Lord of Lords ALWAYS is. I don't want him to visit me...I want him to be with me! The God of these heavens is limited in time and space. He cannot be with me and with you...this is hell for a Christian. We just want to be with Him-always. When I die, I want to be immediately in His prescence. I don't want him to just visit me when he has the time. The Bible says there is judgement and there is hell. There isn't a middle ground...there isnt' a place for people who were good on earth. You accept Him or you do not. If you do not, you are in hell. | | | |
|
| | qwerty
Posts:139
| | 05/19/2008 6:45 PM |
Alert | Posted By itsadryheat on 05/19/2008 6:31 PM I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth) such an one caught up to the third heaven.
And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth)
How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.
Paul was obviously touched by God in this experience. He may have had one of those "I died and then came back to life" expriences where he actually saw heaven. Maybe the third heaven reference is to show that he was above even the stars and moon, since most people think of the heavens and the stars, moon etc... I think the point of the section, in context v 1-6 is that this incredible thing happened to Paul. He saw Heaven. And it wasn't what people thought it was...it wasn't just the stars, moon, sky (heaven) but it was even above that. Maybe the he says "third" because he wants to stress that this is something no one has seen yet. Even, now with our technology into space...heaven is even above that! But the point is that this incredible thing happened to Paul, he saw heaven, but even then- he did not want to boast. I think not boasting is the point of this section of scripture.
Bold emphasis added by me to point out Interpretation, yet when LDS interpret something different than you it's toally wrong and not up for debate/clear cut. I don't quite get that. :-). | | | |
|
| | itsadryheat
Posts:233
| | 05/19/2008 6:56 PM |
Alert | I used those words because I am not sure. But, when you read it in context, it doesn't make sense that this is what he is talking about-a third heaven. AND, when I don't know something...I go and look at several sources, commentarys, books....And I think that you have to look at other verses that talk about heaven. Do other verses support an actual three tiered heaven, or do they support something else. It has to be looked at in context of the verse and the ones that surround it. What do the verses that surround v4 talk about? Let's print it and take a look:
This is from the King James version 12:1-6
1It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.
2I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven.
3And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth
4How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.
5Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities.
6For though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth: but now I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me to be, or that he heareth of me.
From NIV version:
Paul's Vision and His Thorn
1I must go on boasting. Although there is nothing to be gained, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord. 2I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. 3And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— 4was caught up to paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell. 5I will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses. 6Even if I should choose to boast, I would not be a fool, because I would be speaking the truth. But I refrain, so no one will think more of me than is warranted by what I do or say. I will look up some other verses on heaven and post them a little later so we can see what other things the Bible has said about heaven. | | | |
|
| | EEE
Posts:374
| | 05/19/2008 6:59 PM |
Alert | Posted By moinmoin on 05/19/2008 9:41 AM
I can’t help but notice that none of the proponents of the trinity on this thread dealt with the non-Mormon scholarship on the trinity I had posted. Only the most sheltered fundamentalist regards the trinity as a biblical doctrine, most freely admit that it arose in councils centuries after the Apostolic Era and has more affinity with philosophical trends than the New Testament Text. There is even the “Johannine Comma,” which is a late forgery in the New Testament:
http://en.fairmormon.org/Godhead_and_the_Trinity
Scholarship?????? LOL. They didn't even try to dispute the majority of the text dealing with the Trinity!!! I will respond to John 10:30: Both the Father and the Son are comitted to the perfect protection and preservation of Jesus' sheep. "I and the Father are one", stresses the united purpose and action of both in the security and safety of the flock, presupposes unity of nature and essence (John 5:17-23, 17:22) Everyone pretty much knows about 1 John 5:7-8, and that's why nobody used it in defense of the Trinity. OK what about the rest of the verses?? I'm well aware of the history and the councils, that doesn't disprove what God's Word says. WE MUST REMEMBER MOST PEOPLE DIDN'T HAVE THE WHOLE NEW TESTAMENT BEFORE AND EVEN AFTER THE THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA! Again you resort to the opinon of man for your truths and are unable to prove it through scripture, which is the Final Authority for God's truth. | |
Yeah, it's true- He allowed the fall of man/
But He used it now to exalt the Lamb/
The Lord, who's wise, permits existence of sin/
to be glorified in His forgiveness to men/ | |
|
| | EEE
Posts:374
| | 05/19/2008 7:03 PM |
Alert | Posted By qwerty on 05/19/2008 6:45 PM Posted By itsadryheat on 05/19/2008 6:31 PM I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth) such an one caught up to the third heaven.
And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth)
How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.
Paul was obviously touched by God in this experience. He may have had one of those "I died and then came back to life" expriences where he actually saw heaven. Maybe the third heaven reference is to show that he was above even the stars and moon, since most people think of the heavens and the stars, moon etc... I think the point of the section, in context v 1-6 is that this incredible thing happened to Paul. He saw Heaven. And it wasn't what people thought it was...it wasn't just the stars, moon, sky (heaven) but it was even above that. Maybe the he says "third" because he wants to stress that this is something no one has seen yet. Even, now with our technology into space...heaven is even above that! But the point is that this incredible thing happened to Paul, he saw heaven, but even then- he did not want to boast. I think not boasting is the point of this section of scripture.
Bold emphasis added by me to point out Interpretation, yet when LDS interpret something different than you it's toally wrong and not up for debate/clear cut. I don't quite get that. :-). Unless you interpret scripture with scripture. The first heaven is the earth's atmosphere(Gen 8:2, Dt 11:11, 1Ki 8:35) The Second Heaven is the interplanetary and interstellar space (Ge 15:5, Ps 8:3, Is 13:10) The Third Heaven is the abode of God (1 Ki 8:30, 2Ch 30,27,Ps 123:1) | |
Yeah, it's true- He allowed the fall of man/
But He used it now to exalt the Lamb/
The Lord, who's wise, permits existence of sin/
to be glorified in His forgiveness to men/ | |
|
| | qwerty
Posts:139
| | 05/19/2008 7:19 PM |
Alert | The first heaven is the earth's atmosphere(Gen 8:2, Dt 11:11, 1Ki 8:35)
I read these verses and they say nothing of a First heaven, so that is your interpretation.
The Second Heaven is the interplanetary and interstellar space (Ge 15:5, Ps 8:3, Is 13:10)
I read these verses and they say nothing of a Second heaven, so that is your interpretation.
The Third Heaven is the abod of God (1 Ki 8:30, 2Ch 30,27,Ps 123:1)
I read these verses and they say nothing of a Third heaven, so that is your interpretation.
I'm not saying that your interpretation is unsound, but it's still interpretation. | | | |
|
| | EEE
Posts:374
| | 05/19/2008 7:28 PM |
Alert | Posted By qwerty on 05/19/2008 7:19 PM The first heaven is the earth's atmosphere(Gen 8:2, Dt 11:11, 1Ki 8:35)
I read these verses and they say nothing of a First heaven, so that is your interpretation. The Second Heaven is the interplanetary and interstellar space (Ge 15:5, Ps 8:3, Is 13:10)
I read these verses and they say nothing of a Second heaven, so that is your interpretation. The Third Heaven is the abod of God (1 Ki 8:30, 2Ch 30,27,Ps 123:1)
I read these verses and they say nothing of a Third heaven, so that is your interpretation.
I'm not saying that your interpretation is unsound, but it's still interpretation. LOL, I love Mormons, I really do. All three layers were referenced as heaven. So now the Mormons should have like 5 heavens  | |
Yeah, it's true- He allowed the fall of man/
But He used it now to exalt the Lamb/
The Lord, who's wise, permits existence of sin/
to be glorified in His forgiveness to men/ | |
|
| | EEE
Posts:374
| | 05/19/2008 7:32 PM |
Alert | I also love qwerty's avatar, it's always been one of my favorites on here. Looks so cool. | |
Yeah, it's true- He allowed the fall of man/
But He used it now to exalt the Lamb/
The Lord, who's wise, permits existence of sin/
to be glorified in His forgiveness to men/ | |
|
| |
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.6 |
|
|
|