BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
If you AGREE with me that Jesus is not a mere angel, but is above all angels in position, then you have ceded the argument. Otherwise, you are mis-describing my position. If you have a different belief, try to describe it coherently and logically and give us data. You say you want to use your bible. But you are not using it.
Hebrews = Jesus is above all angels
Clear = Jesus and Satan are brothers
Satan = Angel
God is not an angel’s brother. Pearl of Great Price says Satan is coequal with Jesus and Satan offered himself for the redemption of mankind. Do you not understand why a Biblicist is uncomfortable with LDS doctrines?
These kinds of ideas of yours detract from the gospel—that Jesus died and rose, the perfect for the imperfect. You already by fiat adhere to a church that teaches that Satan could have died and risen for us as well—or at least asked to do so. Will you answer the question:
Why does Satan offer to redeem man before either Satan or man have fallen, according to POG Price?
What is the motive for trying to portray me as taking a literal position when you yourself use “brother” metaphorically?
My motive is to demonstrate that you don’t hold to LDS canon, either, and should not say you are representative of LDS members. POG Price and other writings indicate Satan is a literal, not metaphorical, brother of the Lord Jesus Christ. Do you agree or disagree?
You are becoming irrational. The scripture from John 1:18 is hardly a heretical source and you have not provided a single biblical reference to support the theory that Jesus is not a begotten Son of God. If you disagree with the early Christian belief that Jesus was begotten, what data to you have to show readers?
It is irrational to say Jesus was unbegotten, that He is coeternal with God? You don’t recognize that the Bible and the early church and most Christians sects, ever, have Jesus as coeternal with God?
Billiardsball said : "This is now the fifth (sixth?) time I've invited you to stay within the confines of the Bible. "
The answer has been consistently : “No”. It is silly and counterproductive to stay within the confines of a modern English bible if one is attempting to obtain a breadth of historical knowledge of the early Jews, Christians, the time and places in which they live, their language and it’s idioms and idosyncracies and it common uses and meaning, and their doctrines and practices.
Unfortunately, however, your posts tend to be well over 95% early sources that are people commenting on the Bible. You fear discussing the Bible with me because most Christians have doctrines that are biblical and because LDS makes up doctrine from whole cloth. You need not confine yourself to the Bible but if you wish to go on discussing with me, it would be great for you to say, talk about the Bible some of the time, instead of 5% of the time.
Billiardsball said : Because surely if your early Christian doctrines are true, we can find them in the Bible, can't we?
The difference is that you are attempting to synthesize a belief system on the bible just like most other Christians are doing, and yet their doctrines conflict with yours. Though I think you are doing the best that you can, still your modern theories are simply a group of theories out of thousands of other competing theories.
Thousands of theories?
Jesus is a literal brother of Satan or not, two theories, 99% of Christians believe one of the theories.
Jesus is coeternal or was created by the Father, two theories, 99% of Christians believe one of the theories.
Jesus died for us to be saved or we save ourselves, two theories, 99% of conservative Christians believe one of the theories, and social gospel advocated believe the other.
While it is obvious in our various discussions that I am familiar with multiple bibles from different eras and in different languages, my purpose of study is different than yours. You want to prove to yourself and others that what you believe is true. What I am doing is looking at the early Judeo-Christian texts and seeing what the Early Judeo-Christians themselves believed from their own witnesses. This is an entirely different perspective.
Actually, what happens is rather than preconceive notions, when you bring up something I haven’t already heard before, I ask God to give insight.
I don’t think you “have a purpose of study” per se, I think rather you are intent on demonstrating to as many readers as possible that the Bible isn’t to be trusted. What a strange agenda for someone to say, “I’m a Christian, but the Christian source texts are untrustworthy to a large degree.” I don’t understand your perspective. Please tell me more.
This was the reason I brought up the early Doctrines about the plan of God and the reasons underlying God’s plan in early Judeo-Christian worldviews. This is the reason I brought up the early doctrines regarding Lucifers fall and Satans origin. The modern Judeo-Christian movements like yours have very, very few details regarding the origin of Satan and the circumstances underlying his motives and reason surrounding his fall and being cast out of Heaven.
If you think your theories on the origin of Lucifer are superior, I have asked you to offer them as well, but you don’t seem to have any that have any detail. This has also be one of my points. Ancient, informed Christian thought is better than modern, uninformed Christian theories.
I haven’t had any breathing room or time from you to offer any such ideas. I’d love to discuss-not argue with you—my ideas regarding redemption, the Fall, Lucifer, etc. but first, I’d love for you to adhere to a church movement not because “they have superior doctrines and ideas regarding Satan” but rather, “they are faithful to the Word of God.
Billiardsball said : Why do you feel to secure LDS doctrines, you have to refer to neither LDS canon nor Bible canon but letters of people not claiming any inspiration at all? I don't understand. Please help me understand.
I have practiced medicine for many years and many of my patients display psychological patterns that are counter-productive. Though you say you want to “understand” another point of view, I do not think individuals whose loyalty to ideology and lack of logical and rational thought are often able to understand ideologies much beyond their own vision, nor are they able to understand logical and rational thought since they do not subject their ideology to logic or coherence. Whether you are in this category or not, you can judge. Readers can as well.
Thus, my writings have often not been for your benefit since your theories are not often built upon deep historical data, or logic or reasoning. But instead I have often written for other posters who do value Historical data and rational, logical thought as they consider what it is they are to believe about a historical religion. I also want the LDS readers to see the incredible strength of their historical position and introduce them to the literature of early Christians as a valuable witness as to what early Christianity was like and how the early Christians themselves, interpreted the bible.
As you have admitted, your own interpretations have no advantage over that of the earliest Christian witnesses. As you also have observed, and admitted, your own religion is different to that of the earliest Christians. Their religion is “heresy to your religion” and your religion is often “heresy” to them. This is the nature of the apostasy away from early religion and evidence that it happened. Thus, your own posts provide strong evidence to the LDS of their theology, you just don’t see it. In any case, whether the LDS are correct or incorrect in their own religious views, I believe that the earliest and most authentic doctrines in the earliest Christian movement are superior to modern Christian religious theories.
Billiardsball, you can have a satisfying and wonderful spiritual journey, but there are rules. I hope you find happiness in your own journey.
No, please DO help me understand. You don’t believe what the early Christians believe, you believe in the doctrines of the Mormon church, and you also believe that neither Mormon nor Christian canonical books are wholly true. That seems an illogical and untenable stance, and I’m trying to understand.
Also, in a not subtle manner, you imply I’m mentally unwell. Are you a certified counselor or psychologist? If you are a GP or surgeon, do you really tell biblicists who adhere closely to the love of Christ and the Bible that they are being counter-productive to their healing process, and that they are being blind, and are mentally unwell? You owe me an apology.