-You are confused. You attempted to make a linguistic point. You stated: "the meaning of the Greek word for sin, imperfection is sin". This is fundamentally wrong. There is no connection between the Koine Greek for sin and perfection or imperfection. I explained this. I also noted that the koine Greek for sin doesn't even include any notion of guilt. NT writers talk about guilt as do writers of the Tanakh because they are Christians and Jews whose theology includes guilt as part and parcel of the repentance process. Greek civilization developed independent of the Levant. The same goes for its language. Therefore, when Christians or Jews write in Greek to convey their religious ideas, they are doing so with a language that is not perfectly suited for that purpose. Since you didn't understand this point I will illustrate it with another example. Japanese is another civilization and language that developed separate from Christian or Jewish influence. If one buys a Japanese translation of the Bible. The Japanese word for sin is "tsumi". This word (like in the case of koine Greek) does not include a sense of guilt. The pictographic roots of the ideogram that make the word tsumi indicate one caught in a net, indicating being trapped. This is the closest Japanese comes to conveying the idea of sin within the language. It is not the same as the Hebrew. Do you understand?
**I understand. We have discussed some differences between the Greek and Judaic views toward “guilt”. I’m not wishing to add a presentist view toward Greek or Jewish morals.
-Per Romans: we did discuss this before. The conclusions you were drawing and seem to still hold to indicate you do not understand the text, even at a basic level. Even in your most recent post, you failed to correctly identify Paul's audience. He is writing to Romans: gentiles who have been swayed by Jewish Thought. (why Romans would have the least bit of interest in Jewish Thought is a separate point, but I can explain it if you wish). Paul is not writing to Jews. The entire body of the text is a quintessential demonstration of Classical Greek rhetoric, none of which would make any sense for a Jewish audience.
**Scholars do agree that many of the Roman Christians were Gentiles. However, I cannot think of a single scholar who would err to say they were ALL Gentiles. There were Jews among them:
Chapter 1: To
all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called
to be saints (Jews and proselyte Gentiles in the Rome church)
Chapter 7: Or do you not know, brethren (
for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives?
…Therefore, my brethren,
you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. (Only Jews were wed to the law, and only Jews could become dead to the law)
Paul wrote to the Romans likely between 56 and 58 AD—not too long after the death and resurrection of Jesus—to a church that was planted, again most scholars agree, by Jews discipled by Paul. Five house churches are greeted in Chapter 16. Note carefully:
Greet Andronicus and Junia,
my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles
, who also were in Christ before me. (Paul CERTAINLY speaks of being a Gentile apostle in Romans, and nearby here in 16 asks to greet all the churches of the Gentiles, but right here in the text, he is writing Jews of longstanding with Jesus who were reading his letter in ROME.)
The text overall agrees with me also. Arguably, it has more discourse on Jewish issues and Tanakh than any other:
Then what advantages have the Jews? And which Jews are sincere? Romans 3, the whole chapter
Abraham our father is for you, not just for us: Romans 4, the whole chapter
The past of Israel, present of Israel and future of Israel, the entire chapters of 9, 10, 11…
…why would Paul waste five-plus chapters of Jewish discourse on a group you claim are 100% Gentile? Why do you believe the Roman church was different than every other church (many Jews, some Jewish proselyte Gentiles) of the period?
-per Matt 24:13: your post is an example of bad theology leading to bad conclusions and missing the obvious. Here is the text:
But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
Point one: the statement is a categorical. This means it is a universal assertion. It applies to everyone. There are no qualifiers or stipulations on applicability.
Point two: the statement's predicate 'endure' indicates effort, by definition. The following prepositional phrase indicates for how long and the consequence: being saved.
This one verse alone is a contradiction to the idea of being saved is a one off affair where the subject is then divorced from any accountability.
**Again I apologize, but the context is a chapter and a half on the Eschaton. Further, the Bible uses the term saved in other places, speaking of earthly life, not eternal salvation:
“Unless you remain on the ship, you cannot be SAVED [from drowning in the storm]." – Acts
Also, I do not know any trusted Bible expositors, of any tradition, who make statements like “This one verse alone” proves a doctrine. You may safely use one counter-verse to disprove a doctrine, since the Bible is univocal. But it is dangerous to present single verses and verse fragments to prove points. Please be cautious.
-Per priesthood: there is no verse that says all believers are thereby priests.
** But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light" (
1 Peter 2:5-9).
You can confer with Exodus 19:5-6, Revelation 1:6; 5:10
- Per deification: it is in the Bible. I gave you three simple examples. Here they are again:
“For He has given them power to become the sons of God.” John 1:12
"And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together" Romans 8:17
"Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust." 2 peter 1:4
**I am not denying I am a son of God. I am denying that a woman is a son of God, she is a daughter of God, a child of God, not Jesus Christ and not a God. Again, please listen to God’s plea in Romans:
“Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also?”
Whether Mormons theology considers LDS members true Jews or Gentiles or both, I don’t know. But if YOU are a Jew or a Gentile, you have a God over you.
We will be glorified with Him. We will reflect the divine presence. Glorification comes through suffering and is the believer’s deliverance (see Romans 8:21). That does not make us God, which is why thousands of Catholic and Protestant groups have yet to arrive at your doctrine.
I will be a partaker of the divine nature. Believers HAVE a divine nature and need not be enslaved to passions and fleshly sins (Romans 6:6, 14). I HAVE a divine nature but am not God.
-You claim loyalty to the Bible but when it comes down to it, you are more loyal to your ideology than the text. Christianity has embraced theosis from the beginning. It exists in both the canon and the writings of the same peoples who compiled the New Testament. Your hostility to it is from a devotion to a view rooted in the 16th Century.
**I accept theosis, personally. I have to become free of harmartia or missing the mark, my very point. That does not mean I will become a god.
My “hostility” to the Mormon spin on theosis, which is biblical and accepted by the early church, too, is a stance for orthodoxy, against sheer heresy. My “hostility” to the Mormon brand of theosis, that I will become god by dint of MY efforts despite Jesus dying for ALL, not some of my sins, is rooted in even EARLIER sources—as in Tanakh, which comes long before “early sources”. Which Jews writers speak of Jews becoming Gods, please? List your three favorite here:
1.
2.
3.
-Per God making one perfect: we covered this before in the God in Mormonism thread. How is it you forget so soon? If one claims perfection includes a moral component (which you do as you see it as a qualify of God), then one cannot be made perfect any more than one can be made good. Both require free will and cannot be either coerced or created. Perfection would require a willing participation and sanctification with the Divine.
**Yes, perfection requires willing participation, called “I’d like to be born again, please, God”.
-Per ex nihilo: your statement suggests you didn't understand my post. It also indicates again, a loyalty to an ideology rather than the Bible. The Bible does not say matter was created ex nihilo. Further, the base notion of ex nihilo is irrational. It is a violation of the basics of logic. Also note: the big bang is not an ex nihilo posture. Clear already explained this, the Big Bang is a view on how the universe expanded, not that there was nothing and then something.
**I guess that depends on your understanding of the following words:
“In the beginning God MADE the HEAVENS and the Earth.”
I would say, “He created at some point the universe.” Correct me if I’m wrong, don’t Mormons also believe in three Heavens—the atmosphere, the universe, God’s abode? All three are encompassed here, are they not? Don’t Mormons believe that God existed before He made the Heavens, angels, and human spirits?
Nor am I attempting to patronize you—I’m not saying you believe everything Mormon doctrine teaches, as fact. I don’t believe everything many of the sources you ascribe my beliefs too are wholly factual, either. My adherence is to the Bible.
-Per Greek myth: I do not understand your reply. I simply corrected an assertion you made about Greek myth that was wrong. You have a pattern of making statements about subject matter you do not actually understand. This doesn't serve you well.
**That’s okay and likely a trivial point I made. Sorry for being unclear. But per the OP, I would ask you what you call it when someone does NOT miss the mark. Wouldn’t you call that a 100% or perfect score? Yes, I know I will always be grateful for forgiven sin. But if I have sin, I cannot get “in”. Isn’t that James’s point re: being a lawbreaker? Are you familiar with that passage in James 2? I have missed the mark, I sometimes still miss it, and am barred from entering Heaven. Here’s what I am saying:
1. I believe Jesus eliminates the punishment due me, as if I’ve never missed a mark. We call the demerits we can earn on tests “marks”. I’m perfect past because my record is expunged. When I participated in God’s will and asked to be born again, my record was expunged/perfected/cleared. You make it sound like I have some unique (awful) ideas, but simple Google searches on subjects including theosis and etc. pull up pages saying “Jesus makes us perfect!”
2. I perceive (please do instruct me if I’m wrong) that Mormon doctrine believes Jesus gives us an entryway toward Heaven, but that we become gods by our long effort, not by Jesus’s crucifixion efforts.
Finally, I understand your zeal to clear the LDS name from any association with wrong doctrine. I respect that. I do. However, you tend to take terms in use a long time like theosis--partaking in or sipping from the divine nature to clear our record, and make them into ACQUIRING the divine nature, forever. Be cautious, please.
