Thursday, December 2, 2010

The Book of Mormon is truth. Mormon, a 4th-century prophet/historian suffered a lot so you could read it...?


Will you reject it? The history of the Book of Mormon goes beyond Joseph Smith.
Do you know Mormon? He was a person.

My Answer:
Actually, there are two statements in the BoM that come to mind that are are not true. One is found in Mormon 9:32-33, where the claim is made that "reformed Egyptian" hieroglyphics is more compact than their Hebrew. This statement is consistent with early 19th century American knowledge of linguistics, but after Egyptian hieroglyphics were decoded and this knowledge spread to America, it became known that the reverse is true: Hebrew is more compact than Egyptian hieroglyphics will ever be. Since this is an error regarding the source language of the BoM, it can be considered detrimental.

A second piece of error is found in Ether 15:30-31, where a decapitated Shiz struggles for breath. The exact language reads: "he smote off the head of Shiz ... he had smitten off the head of Shiz." Shiz then raised himself up on his hands and "struggled for breath." I'm afraid this is impossible and indefensible.

But, these are only two of the many problems with the information in the BoM. See for instance a book by Mormon historian Grant Palmer: An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins.

Link

Edit: There is an attempted defense of the Shiz story at the non-official LDS apologetic website FAIR. To be fair, I will link to it here: http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Shiz_struggles_to_breathe

Notice it says it was a "sloppy cut" that killed Shiz. But the Book of Mormon disagrees with this appraisal, for it states quite clearly, twice in fact, that his head was chopped off: "smote off the head of Shiz" (15:30), "smitten off the head of Shiz" (15:31).  Far from being a "sloppy cut," the Book of Mormon clearly presents a clean cut. Literally struggling to breath then is impossible, and FAIR dances around this truth by saying it was decerebrate posturing (death throes). Sure, decerebrate posturing is fine and was known before it was medically documented (the date of which is therefore irrelevant and a red herring). But that's not the issue. The issue is, how does someone struggle for breath without a head? It sounds like a case of mixing two different stories together and neglecting to edit the account to present one story. Thus, the problem stands.

Ether 15:
30 And it came to pass that when Coriantumr had leaned upon his sword, that he rested a little, he smote off the head of Shiz. 31 And it came to pass that after he had smitten off the head of Shiz, that Shiz raised up on his hands and fell; and after that he had struggled for breath, he died.
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/ether/15?lang=eng

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

If jesus was god, how could he die?


all that died was the human shell and then it came back...this story makes no sense....how did this save man? jesus knew he was coming back...

Answer

Excellent point. Jesus was a man, not divine on earth. Saying he was fully divine on earth unwittingly denies the ransom, for he could not fully die then.

Jesus volunteered to cancel Adam's sin. "By sinning, Adam lost the precious possession of perfect human life. Hence, he could not pass it on to his offspring. Instead, he could pass on only sin and death. Jesus, whom the Bible calls “the last Adam,” had a perfect human life, and he never sinned. (1 Corinthians 15:45) In a sense, Jesus stepped into Adam’s place in order to save us. By sacrificing, or giving up, his perfect life in flawless obedience to God, Jesus paid the price for Adam’s sin. Jesus thus brought hope to Adam’s offspring.—Romans 5:19; 1 Corinthians 15:21, 22."

Source(s):

The Ransom—God’s Greatest Gift
http://www.watchtower.org/e/bh/article_0…
Comment:
I agree with you that Trinitarianism, Jesus being God, is goofy. But notice my reply if you will, or my blog. Thanks. 
 

Monday, November 22, 2010

Was the south park episode correct about Mormons?


it says its true and most of it I have found to be true to what they believe but Im curious to hear what you think.
also, mormons...how do you feel about the episode?

http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-epi… season 7 episode 12 if you want to watch it

Note, this is the complete link: http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s07e12-all-about-the-mormons


Answer:
In substance, it's correct. The gold plates in this parody are shown as 4 separate plates, when they were actually claimed to be a stack bound with 3 gold rings. This parody also has the townsfolk in 1820 talking of Joseph's "First Vision" of seeing the Heavenly Father and Jesus. However, this is anachronistic since no one in 1820 knew of it like that, as it was first dictated by Joseph in 1838, and no published source mentions it until 1842.

Edit: Regarding Martin Harris, who "was lampooned as a credulous and easily fooled rich man" in this parody, see: How reliable is the Martin Harris testimony?
http://mormonthink.com/witnessesweb.htm#…
"In March 1838, disillusioned church members said that Harris had publicly denied that neither he nor the other Witnesses to the Book of Mormon had ever seen or handled the golden plates—although he had not been present when Whitmer and Cowdery first claimed to have viewed them—and they claimed that Harris's recantation, made during a period of crisis in early Mormonism, induced five influential members, including three Apostles, to leave the Church."

Source(s):

Friday, November 19, 2010

Jehovah's Witnesses where does the Bible say Michael the angel accepted worship?


Joshua 5:14. The prince of the army of Jehovah was doubtlessly* Michael the archangel. The Hebrew word rendered "worship" in the KJV is the same word used in Genesis 43:26, 28 regarding Joseph and 1 Chronicles 29:20 for King David. However, all such prostrations are "to the glory of God the Father."--Philippians 2:11.

Edit:
* Daniel identifies Michael the archangel as the prince of God's people (10:21; 12:1), and Revelation 12:7 identifies him as the commander of the angelic armies. So the conclusion seems inescapable that this prince Joshua met and bowed down to is Michael the archangel.

Link (I was the first to apply Joshua 5:14. Some Trinitarians gave this a thumb down due to low-cerebral activity.)

Members of the Christian faith: What do you disagree on with Mormons and their doctrine?


While I agree with them on the great apostasy for the most part, the biggest point of disagreement is on the nature of sin and salvation...and biology, for they believe that Adam and Eve were created without blood.

The LDS.org Bible Dictionary sums up Mormon teaching this way:
"Before the fall, Adam and Eve had physical bodies but no blood. There was no sin, no death, and no children among any of the earthly creations. With the eating of the “forbidden fruit,” Adam and Eve became mortal, sin entered, blood formed in their bodies, and death became a part of life."

So, according to Mormonism, when Adam fell or transgressed, blood appeared in his body. But, Jesus had blood, as Mormonism believes too! Mormonism teaches that Jesus “made a perfect atonement for the sins of all mankind by shedding of his blood and giving his life on the cross.”

Therefore, both the Bible and Mormon Jesus had blood, which according to Mormonism is the product of Adam's transgression.

What we have here may be called a soteriological contradiction, for Jesus was holy and sinless--he did not have any products of Adam's transgression. (Luke 1:35; Hebrews 4:15)

Edit: I see Mormons are thumbing down this post and others, hoping they will go away. (sigh) Instead of thumbing this post down, why not think about it? Contact me to discuss this if you want.

Link | (Related Question)

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Jehovah's Witnesses, do you believe that Jesus is Michael the Archangel?



Does the Watchtower still teach this. On what scriptural basis can Michael be Jesus? I studied and read my Bible on this subject and have never come to the conclusion that Michael and Jesus are one and the same. Please explain (unless it's not taught anymore). Thanks

Yes. Some people just refuse to believe that though, so no amount of persuasive and logical, scriptural reasoning will help. Instead, some prefer to believe that Jesus is fully human and fully divine in the spirit realm--that God is a Jewish man outside of earth's atmosphere. They refer to scriptures like 1 Timothy 2:5 that refer to Jesus being a man by experience, and claim it means he's a physical man outside of earth's atmosphere. But this just denies Jesus' divinity as this human-divine duality, this Hypostatic Union, is analogous to a square circle or freezing inferno. It also contradicts what Jesus, Peter, and Paul taught about Jesus' body and the laws of physics. Paul also stated that Jesus is not a man in Galatians 1:1.

The only alternative then is that Jesus is another person, one who would be over the angels. That's the role of the only archangel.

Source(s):

John 8:21, 23; 1 Corinthians 15:45, 50 ("flesh and blood" is human nature that is bound to earthly conditions); 1 Timothy 3:16; 1 Peter 3:18.

Link

Thursday, November 4, 2010

My Answer to: Do all Jehovah's Witnesses believe this? Please Help!?

Jehovah's Witnesses believe and confess that Jesus had a completely different body and the one that was scarred had been dissolved and done away with by The Lord.

If this is true then why would Jesus be deceptive in proving that He was the risen Christ?

Thomas the disciple needed proof that Jesus was indeed the risen Christ who had been crucified therefore Jesus showed him scars in His hands and side as proof.

SCRIPTURE:
Then said He to Thomas, "Reach hither thy finger and behold My hands, and reach hither thy hand and thrust it into My side: and be not faithless, but believing"

So here is my Question:

"Do Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus showed Thomas replicated scars and not the actual scars He received for our Salvation?"

My Answer:

The book You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth states on pp. 143-5:

FLESHLY BODY NOT TAKEN TO HEAVEN
However, many persons believe that Christ took his fleshly body to heaven. They point to the fact that when Christ was raised from the dead, his fleshly body was no longer in the tomb. (Mark 16:5-7) Also, after his death Jesus appeared to his disciples in a fleshly body to show them that he was alive. Once He even had the apostle Thomas put his hand into the hole in His side so that Thomas would believe that He had actually been resurrected. (John 20:24-27) Does this not prove that Christ was raised alive in the same body in which he was put to death?

No, it does not. The Bible is very clear when it says: “Christ died once for all time concerning sins . . . , he being put to death in the flesh, but being made alive in the spirit.” (1 Peter 3:18) Humans with flesh-and-blood bodies cannot live in heaven. Of the resurrection to heavenly life, the Bible says: “It is sown a physical body, it is raised up a spiritual body. . . . flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s kingdom.” (1 Corinthians 15:44-50) Only spirit persons with spiritual bodies can live in heaven.

Well, then, what happened to Jesus’ fleshly body? Did not the disciples find his tomb empty? They did, because God removed Jesus’ body. Why did God do this? It fulfilled what had been written in the Bible. (Psalm 16:10; Acts 2:31) Thus Jehovah saw fit to remove Jesus’ body, even as he had done before with Moses’ body. (Deuteronomy 34:5, 6) Also, if the body had been left in the tomb, Jesus’ disciples could not have understood that he had been raised from the dead, since at that time they did not fully appreciate spiritual things.

But since the apostle Thomas was able to put his hand into the hole in Jesus’ side, does that not show that Jesus was raised from the dead in the same body that was nailed to the stake? No, for Jesus simply materialized or took on a fleshly body, as angels had done in the past. In order to convince Thomas of who He was, He used a body with wound holes. He appeared, or seemed to be, fully human, able to eat and drink, just as did the angels that Abraham once entertained.—Genesis 18:8; Hebrews 13:2.

While Jesus appeared to Thomas in a body similar to the one in which He was put to death, He also took on different bodies when appearing to His followers. Thus Mary Magdalene at first thought that Jesus was a gardener. At other times his disciples did not at first recognize him. In these instances it was not his personal appearance that served to identify him, but it was some word or action that they recognized.—John 20:14-16; 21:6, 7; Luke 24:30, 31.

For 40 days after his resurrection, Jesus made appearances in a fleshly body to his disciples. (Acts 1:3) Then he left for heaven. (end quote)

So if Jesus appeared in the same body he sacrificed, would it not appear that he had invalidated the ransom? It certainly would, especially to Satan who would then charge him as being fraudulent. Also, please consider Galatians 1:1, where Paul in effect said that Jesus is not a man.

Hi Rusty (and anyone else), if you read our comments carefully, you'll see that Jesus is a spirit who materialized. There is a scriptural precedent for this. Also, Jesus is a man now experientially, not ontologically. That's because Jesus said he is not from our lower (physical) world in John 8:23, and Peter said he is not physical but is a spirit in 1 Peter 3:18. Regarding Hebrews 13:8, Jesus' personality is the same regardless of being a spirit being in heaven. Did you know that we can only live on earth or in earthly conditions? Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:50 that physical bodies cannot enter heaven. So Jesus cannot have a physical body outside of earth, for Jesus said that heaven is a higher world than our lower world in John 8:23. Also, please consider Galatians 1:1, where Paul in effect said that Jesus is not a man. Jesus is a man now experientially (by experience), not ontologically. Ontologically he is a spirit as Peter and Paul said.

Additional comment:

Yes, the angels who materialized as "humans" still existed as angels. Of course they were not children of Adam requiring a redeemer! :-) When finished, they dematerialized like the ascending Jesus did when a cloud obscured him from view. Thanks for asking!

LINK


Additional reading:



Thursday, October 28, 2010

Jehovah's Witnesses, why do you reject the Trinity?


For starters, here are reasons why I do:
1) It presents an invalid soteriology, as its Jesus did not offer what Adam lost. Adam lost perfect life on earth. The Trinitarian man-god Jesus did not offer a corresponding ransom for that. (2 Tim. 2:5, 6) It also states that Jesus did not really die, as his "divine nature did not die," only his "properties of divinity" with his human body died.[1] Thus, Trinitarianism teaches that Jesus did not have to fully sacrifice his life. Regarding this, consider the conversation Jesus had with Peter recorded at Matthew 16:21-23 and at Mark 8:31-33. Here, Jesus made it very clear that he would be killed. But Peter rebuked him, saying: "God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You." (Mat. 16:22, NASB) Here, Trinitarianism appears to agree with Peter's rebuke. But Jesus called such reasoning satanic, and thoughts of men alienated from God.

2) It violates the laws of physics that the Bible agrees with: the Trinitarian Jesus is "fully man" in the divine realm. "Jesus continues to be fully God and fully human—now God in glorified human flesh."[2] Yet, Jesus said that he is not from our world, that he comes from a transcendent realm (TWN ANW), a realm "above" our "lower" realm (TWN KATW) where our physical bodies cannot enter. (John 8:21, 23) Additionally, there is Jesus' contrast at Matthew 16:17, where he contrasts "flesh and blood" with his "Father who is in the heavens," and 1 Corinthians 15:50, where Paul said that "flesh and blood cannot inherit God's kingdom, neither does corruption inherit incorruption." "Flesh and blood" is human nature, and it can only exist on earth or in earthly conditions. Thus, Trinitarianism is at odds with the laws of physics and contradicts Jesus and Paul. It makes Jesus into a fool for retaining his physical, human body and taking it to a place where he said it by definition cannot exist.

3) It turns Jesus' divinity into an abstraction. He is the second person of the Godhead, yet he is also "fully human" in the divine realm where Jesus and Paul said human flesh cannot exist, harmonizing with the laws of physics. Indeed, by way of contrast, Jehovah's Witnesses affirm and openly declare Jesus' divinity and lordship to the glory of God the Father. (Phil. 2:11) It's that simple.


[1] Slick, Matt. "The Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, and the Communicatio Idiomatum."
http://carm.org/christianity/christian-d…

[2] "The Dual Nature of Jesus Christ." http://www.gci.org/Jesus/dualnature

Edit: That should be 1 Tim. 2:5, 6, not 2 Tim., that discusses Jesus' corresponding ransom: ANTILUTRON.


@ surfari, hi there! You said: "the answer to every question on jw beliefs can ultimately be traced to "the watchtower said so"." Actually, perhaps you noticed that I did not quote the Watchtower, rather, I quoted from Trinitarians. The Watchtower has nothing to do with it. They just agree with me that the Trinity makes Jesus a liar and poor teacher. I honestly don't think you know what the Watchtower teaches, based on your post. The Watchtower is more scriptural and logical than you think. You're welcome for learning a new word! Take care! :-)

@ Tim F, Hi there! That word [ANTILUTRON] does mean that literally, I looked it up from non-JW sources. Adam was a perfect man and lost perfect human life. Jesus was a perfect man, and sacrificed his perfect life. Origins are irrelevant. [He was claiming that Adam would have to have had a pre-human existence as an archangel too.] It’s the values that are most relevant. But it’s the Trinity teaching that I referred to that means Jesus did not sacrifice his life, thus unwittingly denying the ransom.

Link

(This question was deleted when Trinitarians complained about it. However, a more comprehensive version of it is here: jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/11/normal-0-false-false-false.html)

Are Trinitarians offended by 3-faced representations of the Trinity, and do some dislike the Scutum Fidei?


Some representations of the Trinity include the Scutum Fidei (Shield of the Trinity) with the three-faced iconography. How is this viewed then? Would the Trinitarian that is offended by the three-faced image but who favors the Scutum Fidei diagram like this combination, or be offended by it as well?

I mean no disrespect. I would just like to know. Thank you.

Picture of the Scutum Fidei (Shield of the Trinity):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shield…

Pictures of the three-faced/Scutum Fidei combination:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:T…
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:T…

Note: while these pictures are from Wikipedia, they are also found on the Internet.

Additional Details

@ Faith_works, hi there. Yes, I see the Triquetra is also very similar to the Scutum Fidei. Thank you for providing me a name for this. What is also similar to the Scutum Fidei is the Eye of Providence.

Wikipedia links:
Triquetra
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triquetra
Eye of Providence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_Prov…

These links are just for easy reference.

Does Trinitarianism unwittingly deny the divinity of Christ?


According to Trinitarianism, Jesus is a person of the Godhead. As one Trinitarian explained:

(quote)
The Trinity is the teaching that there is only one God who exists as three simultaneous and eternal persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. By "person" is meant the characteristics of self awareness, speech, having a will, emotions, etc. Therefore, there are three persons. … They are not three separate gods and are not three separate beings. They are three distinct persons; yet, they are all the one God. … If any one of the three were removed, there would be no God. … The Trinity is one God in three persons.[1]
(end quote)

Not three gods, but three persons. And, according to the Shield of the Trinity or Scutum Fidei, Jesus is God diagrammatically.[2] Yet, so is the Father and the Holy Spirit. So, we are left with the following: Jesus is not a god but a person of the Godhead, and is God diagrammatically along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and God is not a person but three persons.

Additionally, Trinitarianism teaches that Jesus, in what is called the “Hypostatic Union,” is “fully divine” and also “fully man.”

Thus, I ask in all sincerity, has Trinitarianism unwittingly denied the divinity of Christ?

[1] Slick, Matt. “The Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, and the Communicatio Idiomatum.”
http://carm.org/christianity/christian-d…

[2] “Shield of the Trinity.” Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_of_t…

Update : @ JC Redding, hi there. As you can see, my primary source is not Wikipedia but the Trintiarian website CARM.org. Wikipedia is only sourced for the Shield of the Trinity diagram. :-)

Update 2: @ Annsan_In_Him, hi there. I'm trying to understand this issue as it troubles me deeply. To say that Jesus is fully man now seems to deny his full divinity. How can it not? Please try to focus on my sincere question. Thank you.

Update 3: ============
I see some Trinitarians have a problem with visual representations of the Trinity, like the Scutum Fidei. Perhaps this will be another question I'll ask.

While I appreciate the replies from some Oneness believers, I have some cognitive barriers with 'Oneness-ism'; but that's another topic.

Update 4: @ Annsan_In_Him, hi again. :-) I would like to address three points you made:
>"The three Persons are in eternal relationship with each other. That is why God is love."

But the Trinity is not required for God to be love. A unitarian God can still be love by having it be a primary cardinal attribute.

>"You seem to fail to grasp how the Creator can be far more complex than mere mortals are."

I assure you that is not the issue. I think I understand Trinitarian mechanics better than some Trinitarians do.

>"Do you think your sense of logic must determine what is true about God?"

It must conform to Paul's logic, which it does not seem to when he makes comparisons with the wife being in subjection to the husband like Christ is in subjection to God. (1 Corinthians 11:3) This comparison conforms to our logic, and therefore God's nature must too for Paul to be an authentic apostle, not using irrelevant analogies.

Update 5: @ Joe, hi and thank you for your thoughtful reply. You evidently are interested upholding the divinity of Christ, as am I. However, I noticed what appears to be prestidigitation. To merely say 'it is so' does not necessarily make it so--especially when we are dealing with physical properties (human nature) existing where it ought not, in the divine realm. This my friend is a contradiction, and a sobering one at that.

Best Answer
בַר אֱנָשׁ (bar_enosh)
Yes, that and the absolute almightiness of God the Father. Athanasius was wrong, there cannot be three almightys.

See what mental and verbal gymnastics Trinitarians must perform to give even the least amount of substance to their doctrine. There's nothing like that in the Bible at all. Jesus gave us a pure, true, and simple teaching about the relationship between himself and his Father.

The Bible is clear that the Father is God. Jesus Christ is the Son of God. There's nothing at all about substances and co-equal persons in a Godhead in the Scriptures.

If God exists as three co-equal, co-eternal persons who are each fully God, then the Trinity is composed of three Gods, pure and simple, and Trinitarianism becomes polytheism.

Asker's rating & comment
Thank you my friend, it appears to me that Trinitarianism turns Christ's divinity into a diagrammatical abstraction, and a word game of prestidigitation.

Friday, October 8, 2010

My Question: How can Mary exist in Heaven (outside of earth's atmosphere) with her physical body?


Pope Pius XII declared: "Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory." Yes, according to the Assumption of Mary doctrine, she retained her physical body.
"Munificentissimus Deus - Defining the Dogma of the Assumption." November 1, 1950.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x…

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_…

1 Corinthians 15:50 states in the Jerusalem Bible: “Flesh and blood [the natural] cannot inherit the kingdom of God [the supernatural]: and the perishable [the natural] cannot inherit what lasts for ever [the supernatural].” So, how can the natural (Mary's physical body) exist in the supernatural (Heaven)?

Last but not least, the Lord Jesus declared at John 8:23: “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.” (NIV) Thus he said that his world, “heaven,” is “above” this world. So, how can something from “the below” (TWN KATW), Mary's human body under the laws of physics, exist in “the above” (TWN ANW), the divine heavenly realm above the laws of physics and outside of earth's atmosphere?

Additional Details

While it is true that 2 Kings 2:11 has Elijah ascending in a windstorm to the heavens, he does not die at this time, nor does he go into the invisible spirit realm, but he is transferred to another prophetic assignment. (See John 3:13.) This is shown by the fact that Elisha does not hold any period of mourning for his master. A number of years (over four) after his ascension in the windstorm Elijah is still alive and active as a prophet, this time to the king of Judah. Because of the wicked course taken by King Jehoram of Judah, Elijah writes him a letter expressing Jehovah’s condemnation, which is fulfilled shortly thereafter.—2Ch 21:12-15.

Regarding Enoch, Genesis 5:24 says he was no more, for God "took" him, and Hebrews 11:5 says he was "translated" or "taken away" so he would not see his own death; nothing about retaining his physical body.

So, the Bible doesn't really say that these two retained their human bodies outside of earth's atmosphere. It's just not there.

Regarding Moses, Deuteronomy 32:1-6 states that he died in Moab and was burried there in the valley in front of Beth-peor. Nothing about going to heaven, much less with his human body. In fact, Jude 9 depicts Satan disputing over Moses' body, showing that it was not in heaven but still buried.

Regarding Abraham, Genesis 25:9 states that he was burried 'in the cave of Machpelah in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite that is in front of Mamre.' Again, nothing about going to heaven, much less with his human body.
 
@ BibleChooser: Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

About Possibilities #1 and 2, I accept those, however then in both of them she is without her physical body which is what I am questioning the validity of based on Scripture and the laws of physics. Why would God take a human being outside of earth’s atmosphere? Would he not then have to micromanage her body so it would not expire? That seems to be based on ignorance that humans can only live on earth or if they take earth-like conditions with them (like in an astronaut suit) to an inhospitable place (like outer space). Either the popes don’t know that, or they haven’t applied this knowledge to the Assumption of Mary doctrine.

About Elijah, having him expire during his fiery-chariot departure appears to contradict Bible chronology that evidently has him writing a true warning to King Jehoram of Judah at 2Ch 21:12-15 a number of years after this event.

He departed from Elisha in Israel, then he is seen again a number of years later writing a letter to the king of Judah. So, perhaps the fiery chariot transported him to another prophetic assignment. In any case, 2 Chronicles presents him as still being alive on earth after his fiery departure. (It’s possible it was a different Elijah, but it seems that Ezra, the chronicler, would have mentioned this. Also, his letter was not a forgery, for it proved to be true.)

About Enoch, Hebrews 11:5 uses the Greek word that signifies he was "translated," “transferred” or "taken away." However, in view of Jesus’ clear statement to Nicodemus at John 3:13, (“_No one [no human] has ascended into heaven_, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.”—NASB) he was not taken to heaven. One theory is that God put him in a prophetic trance and then terminated his life while he was in the trance, so that he did not experience the pangs of death or martyrdom.

It appears then that God disposed of Enoch’s body when he “took him.” Since Jesus by implication said he did not go to Heaven in John 3:13, it appears then that Enoch is preserved in God’s memory and will be resurrected at the appointed time.

Thank you for providing me insight as to why some may think Moses and Abraham ascended to heaven, per the transfiguration and the rich man and Lazarus account. However, as Jesus said in John 3:13, they did not ascend to Heaven. So, the transfiguration appearances must have been visionary and prophetic in nature. Regarding the nature of the dispute over Moses’ body, it appears that God kept his burial place a secret to prevent the Israelites from being ensnared by idolatry by making a shrine of his grave. Evidently Satan desired to use Moses’ body for some such purpose.

****************************************
A point in conclusion: God can only create what is allowable by the laws of physics that he put in place. So, this is not about lack of faith in His ability to support a physical human outside of earth's atmosphere, but faith in His superior intelligence to not waste time and energy in something that His laws of physics will not support, in this case of having a human body in heaven.

See a similar question/answer:
Trinitarians: How can Jesus be fully man outside of earth's atmosphere?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;…
 


Best Answer: [by Mindy]

You asked and I quote:
"How can Mary exist in Heaven (outside of earth's atmosphere) with her physical body?"

It's absolutely utterly impossible. Even though the Bible does state that with God ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE at Matthew 19:26, it also states that "it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to lie" at Hebrews 6:18.

Therefore, when the Bible speaks of ALL THINGS being possible with God, this would by reason of necessity be "ALL THINGS" that DO NOT go against his own holy Word, being that it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to lie.

People have to learn to view the Bible for what it truly is... the INFALLIBLE Word of God the Almighty. It's GOD'S WORD, in which it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to lie:

"Indeed, that is why we also thank God incessantly, because when YOU received God’s word, which YOU heard from us, YOU accepted it, NOT AS THE WORD OF MEN, but, just as it TRUTHFULLY IS, AS THE WORD OF GOD, which is also at work in YOU believers."
~ 1 Thessalonians 2:13

It is GOD'S WORD which clearly states that flesh and blood CANNOT inherit God's Kingdom at 1 Corinthians 15:50. Being that it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to lie and his Word clearly states what it does at 1 Corinthians 15:50, the Scriptural rule found at Romans 3:4 is enforced when it comes to either believing God at his Word... OR... believing the ideas, thoughts, traditions, beliefs, theories... etc, of sincere, well meaning but imperfect humans:

"let God be found true, though every man be found a liar"
~ Romans 3:4

I am an ex-Italian Roman Catholic and even back when I and my family use to go to the church, I personally never believed in the Assumption doctrine. It never sat well with me. I knew that God wasn't a human being and our kind (humans) could not possibly exist in a place whre an all powerful being such as God was. Upon learning the truth of the Scriptures I became beyond convinced due to the accurate knowledge on the subject that the Bible provided.

I truly do feel for people, they are like blind people groping around in darkness who are being led and guided by other blind people whom they respect because of the titles they hold as part of the religious Clergy. I understand how Jesus must have felt when he saw the crowds of people and he "felt pity for them, because they were skinned and thrown about like sheep without a shepherd" (Matthew 9:36).

Not too long ago, I was one of them, groping around in the darkness and simply reciting what I was taught and grew up on as part of religious tradition.

I noticed that people here have brought up 'the Rich Man and Lazarus' PARABLE recorded at Luke 16:19-31 as a possible way to try and justify the Assumption, however that parable doesn't cut it because of it being just that... a PARABLE / ILLUSTRATION.

The Jerusalem Bible, in a footnote, acknowledges that it is a “parable in story form without reference to any historical personage.”

If taken literally, it would mean that those enjoying divine favor could all fit at the bosom of one man, Abraham; that the water on one’s fingertip would not be evaporated by the fire of Hades; that a mere drop of water would bring relief to one suffering there. Does that sound reasonable to you... to friggin ANYONE?

If it were literal, it would conflict with other parts of the Bible. If the Bible were thus contradictory, would a lover of truth use it as a basis for his faith? But the Bible does not contradict itself, it is only the man-made religious teachings and traditions that are taught as doctrine, which make the Bible SEEM to contradict itself.

So, what does the parable about 'the Rich Man and Lazarus' mean?

The “rich man” represented the Pharisees (See verse 14). The beggar Lazarus represented the common Jewish people who were despised by the Pharisees but who repented and became followers of Jesus (See Luke 18:11; John 7:49; Matthew 21:31, 32). Their deaths were also symbolic, representing a change in circumstances. Thus, the formerly despised ones came into a position of divine favor, and the formerly seemingly favored ones were rejected by God, while being tormented by the judgment messages delivered by the ones whom they had despised.—Acts 5:33; 7:54.

Then, I noticed that you had some people bring up the account of the prophet Elijah in the whirlwind. There's no need for me to go into that because you have done so wonderfully by Scripture. You showed that the prophet WAS NOT taken to the heavenly spirit realm but rather to the physical heaven(s) which consists of the sky, clouds, birds... etc, that he was simply transported from one place to another and at a later time he even sent correspondance by letter.

As for the events that took place during the transfiguration of Jesus, the Bible shows that what the apostles saw was in fact a VISION, due to the fact that after the event happened, Jesus is recorded as saying to the apostles John, Peter and James, "Tell THE VISION to no one until the Son of man is raised up from the dead” (Matthew 17:9).

During Jesus’ transfiguration, Moses and Elijah also appeared “with glory.” (Lu 9:30, 31; Matthew 17:3; Mark 9:4) It had been foretold that Jehovah would raise up a prophet like Moses, and that promise was fulfilled in Christ. (Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Acts 3:19-23) There were many similarities between Moses and Jesus, such as: Babes were killed at their births, though they themselves were spared (Exodus 1:20–2:10; Matthew 2:7-23); they both experienced fasts of 40 days’ duration (Exodus 24:18; 34:28; Deuteronomy 9:18, 25; Matthew 4:1, 2); both were raised up by God in the interests of true worship and to effect deliverance (Exodus 3:1-10; Acts 7:30-37; 3:19-23); they were each privileged by God to mediate a covenant with his people (Exodus 24:3-8; Hebrews 8:3-6; 9:15); both were used by Jehovah to magnify his name (Exodus 9:13-16; John 12:28-30; 17:5, 6, 25, 26).

It was also foretold that Jehovah would send Elijah the prophet, among whose works was that of turning persons of Israel to true repentance. While Jesus was on earth, John the Baptizer did a work of that kind and served as the Messiah’s forerunner, fulfilling Malachi 4:5, 6. (Matthew 11:11-15; Luke 1:11-17) But, since the transfiguration occurred after the death of John the Baptizer, Elijah’s appearance in it indicates that a work of restoration of true worship and vindication of Jehovah’s name would be associated with the establishment of God’s Kingdom in the hands of Christ.

During the transfiguration, Jesus, Moses, and Elijah talked about Christ’s “departure [a form of the Greek word e′xo·dos] that he was destined to fulfill at Jerusalem.” (Luke 9:31) This e′xo·dos, exodus or departure, evidently involved both Christ’s death and his subsequent resurrection to spirit life.

Some critics have endeavored to class the transfiguration as simply a dream. However, Peter, James, and John would not logically all have had exactly the same dream. Jesus himself called what took place a “vision” (Matthew 17:9), but not a mere illusion. Christ was actually there, though Moses and Elijah, who were dead, were not literally present. They were represented in vision. The Greek word used for “vision” at Matthew 17:9 is ho′ra·ma, also rendered “sight.” (Acts 7:31) It does not imply unreality, as though the observers were laboring under a delusion. Nor were they insensible to what occurred, for they were fully awake when witnessing the transfiguration. With their literal eyes and ears they actually saw and heard what took place at that time.—Luke 9:32.

As Moses and Elijah were being separated from Jesus, Peter, “not realizing what he was saying,” suggested the erecting of three tents, one each for Jesus, Moses, and Elijah. (Luke 9:33) But as the apostle spoke, a cloud formed (Luke 9:34), evidently (as at the tent of meeting in the wilderness) symbolizing Jehovah’s presence there on the mountain of the transfiguration. (Exodus 40:34-38) From out of the cloud there came Jehovah’s voice, saying: “This is my Son, the one that has been chosen. Listen to him.” (Luke 9:35) Years later, with reference to the transfiguration, Peter identified the heavenly voice as that of “God the Father.” (2Peter 1:17, 18) In the transfiguration, evidently Moses and Elijah represented the Law and the Prophets, both of which pointed toward and were fulfilled in Christ. Whereas in the past God had spoken through prophets, he now indicated that he would do so through his Son.—Galatians 3:24; Hebrews 1:1-3.

The apostle Peter viewed the transfiguration as a marvelous confirmation of the prophetic word, and by having been an eyewitness of Christ’s magnificence, he was able to acquaint his readers “with the power and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (2Peter 1:16, 19) The apostle had experienced the fulfillment of Christ’s promise that some of his followers would “not taste death at all until first they see the kingdom of God already come in power.” (Mark 9:1) The apostle John may also have alluded to the transfiguration at John 1:14.


My guess of why MANY Catholics put stock in the man-made dogma of the Assumption is because of what is stated in the book of Revelation at Revelation 12:1, 2. They are taught to believe that the "woman" that the apostle John was/is the "virgin" Mary. I'm NOT here going to go into how and why the "woman" IS NOT Mary and what the "woman" actually represents because I have already done so on Yahoo Answers here:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=A0WTZXT3GaVMwXwACAnty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20100927093834AANnhyy&show=7#profile-info-iBxx4SNNaa

Source(s):

I sooooo will be beyond happy when we are soon in God's foretold Paradisaic New Earth (2 Peter 3:13) and all these man-made twisted teachings of Babylon the Great (including Babylon the Great herself) will be gone forever. We will truly have, "exquisite delight in the abundance of peace" (Psalm 37:11).


LINK 

My Question: Mormons: Adam and Eve were created without blood?


The LDS.org Bible Dictionary sums up Mormon teaching this way:
"Before the fall, Adam and Eve had physical bodies but no blood. There was no sin, no death, and no children among any of the earthly creations. With the eating of the “forbidden fruit,” Adam and Eve became mortal, sin entered, blood formed in their bodies, and death became a part of life."
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/f/2
So, blood is associated with death, not life? You believe that's true? Let's keep the replies focused to this topic please.

Additional Details

The name Adam literally means “ruddy” and derives from the Hebrew word dam, meaning “blood.” According to Mormonism, when he fell or transgressed, blood appeared in his body. But, Jesus had blood! Therefore, both the Bible and Mormon Jesus had blood, which according to Mormonism is the product of Adam's transgression.

What we have here may be called a soteriological contradiction, for Jesus was holy and sinless--he did not have any products of Adam's transgression. (Luke 1:35; Hebrews 4:15)
[Only one answer of mild import.]

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

My First Question: Trinitarians: How can Jesus be fully man outside of earth's atmosphere?


Trinitarianism teaches that "Jesus' two natures, human and divine, are inseparable. Jesus will forever be the God-man, fully God and fully human, two distinct natures in one Person. Jesus' humanity and divinity are not mixed, but are united without loss of separate identity."
http://www.gotquestions.org/hypostatic-u…

But now Jesus is in heaven, outside of earth's atmosphere. How can he retain his human nature and keep it intact? He never had to before the incarnation. But now he has to maintain his human nature, sustaining it outside of earth's atmosphere, forever?

Additional Details

@ Bar_enosh: Thank you for your response. I'd like to hear from Trinitarians too.

@ Carlito, hi and thank you for your response.

“Heaven,” God’s abode, is by definition outside of earth’s atmosphere. If it wasn’t, then God would be physically discernable and measurable, which he isn’t. Corroborating this is Psalms 57:5 and 11, which says: “Be exalted above the heavens, O God; Let Your glory be above all the earth.” (NASB) (See also Psalms 108:5 and 113:4, and Deuteronomy 10:14.) Thus, both reason and scripture lead one to conclude that God dwells outside of earth’s atmosphere.

I agree with you that “heaven” is “the spiritual dimension.” But that too is by definition outside of earth’s atmosphere.

Regarding human nature and the human body, the Hypostatic Union doctrine teaches that Jesus is the union of two hypostases, two substances, in one hypostasis or substance. It is a union of the human and divine hypostases. Trinitarianism teaches that Jesus retained his human body he acquired at his incarnation.

“The addition of the human nature to the divine nature is Jesus, the God-man. This is the hypostatic union, Jesus Christ, one Person, fully God and fully man.”[1] Additionally, one Trinitarian wrote that “Jesus is God in human flesh. He is not half God and half man. He is fully divine and fully man. That is, Jesus has two distinct natures: divine and human.”[2] Thus, Jesus’ human nature is declared to be human flesh.

The Trinitarian Jesus is the union of his human nature or body of his incarnation with his divine nature. To say that his human nature is not human would contradict Trinitarianism’s doctrine that Jesus is fully man. It would also be similar to the docetic heresy, that Jesus only appears to be human.[3]

This being said, my sincere question remains.

Footnotes:
[1] “What is the hypostatic union? How can Jesus be both God and man at the same time?” http://www.gotquestions.org/hypostatic-u…

[2] Slick, Matt. “The Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, and the Communicatio Idiomatum.” http://carm.org/christianity/christian-d…

[3] “Docetism” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism

"Docetic" in that Jesus retained a docetic human form. But that is anathema. He retained his incarnate human body according to the Trinitarian sources above. I agree it would make more sense if Trinitarianism would teach that Jesus is human experientially (human by experience only now), but it doesn't. It teaches that Jesus is fully human and fully divine, in hypostatic union.

@ Carlito
In addition to Psalms 57:5, 11, 108:5 and 113:4, and Deuteronomy 10:14, we have the Lord Jesus’ own description recorded at John 8:23: “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.” (NIV) Thus he said that his world, “heaven,” is “above” this world. We also have the accounts of an angel’s and Jesus’ ascension to heaven. (Judges 13:20; Acts 1:9) Lastly, there is the account in Revelation 12 where Satan and his angels are “thrown down to the earth.” (NASB) Since you said you favor heaven being “the spiritual dimension,” this could be illustrated by calling it “above” earth, as it would be a higher realm.

Where did your comment go Carlito? [He removed his comment, but I continued to reply to what I read him say.]

1 Corinthians 15:50 declares an axiomatic truth: “flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s kingdom.” (NWT) This applies to the laws of creation. The natural cannot exist in the supernatural.

Any teaching that leads to ridiculous conclusions has to be questioned. The Trinity teaching of the hypostatic union is one of these. It teaches that Jesus is now fully human in heaven, whereas before he was fully divine only. Trinitarians also say, correctly in this case, that God is transcendent. Here lies an apparent contradiction, for this leads to an impossible situation of something from “the below” (TWN KATW), his human body under the laws of physics, existing in “the above” (TWN ANW), the divine heavenly realm above the laws of physics (John 8:23), and a situation where Jesus now has to maintain his human body in this transcendent realm where by definition it cannot exist. This would make Jesus a fool for not discarding his human body, and since the Lord Jesus is not a fool, the hypostatic union is offensive to him. Trinitarian reasoning and exegesis then falls into question as a whole, as a much more reasonable exegesis exists, one that has a valid soteriology.

A point in conclusion: God can only create what is allowable by the laws of physics that he put in place. So, this is not about lack of faith in His ability to make a human-divine hypostatic union, but faith in His superior intelligence to not waste time and energy in something that His laws of physics will not support, in this case of having a human body in heaven.

LINK


Related blog post:

My Answer to: The verse that says one must believe that Jesus is God in order to be a Christian and therefore be saved?



Would someone please give me the Bible book, chapter, and verse?

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
Well, Jesus is God in the same sense that the angel in Exodus 23:21 was Jehovah God.

Exodus 23:21 in the NWT-Ref reads: Watch yourself because of him and obey his voice. Do not behave rebelliously against him, for he will not pardon YOUR transgression; because my name is within him. [Footnote: That is, the “angel” as Jehovah’s representative, to act in his name.]

Exodus 23:21 in the NET Bible reads: Take heed because of him, and obey his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgressions, for my name is in him.
The footnote on "name" says in part: "Driver quotes McNeile as saying, 'The "angel" is Jehovah Himself "in a temporary descent to visibility for a special purpose."'"

As Jesus represented his Father and came in his Father’s name (John 5:43; 8:29), it could be said that Jesus is Jehovah God Himself in a temporary descent to visibility for a special purpose. Perhaps this is why Thomas declared "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28) John recorded Thomas' exclamation "that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God." (John 20:31)

Thus, the angel was Jehovah representationally, not literally or ontologically. The same with Jesus. He is Lord "to the glory of God the Father." (Phil. 2:11) He honors his God and says "my God" four times as a resurrected being in Revelation 3:12.

Source(s):
New World Translation
New English Translation

Asker's Rating:

    5 out of 5
Asker's Comment:
    Thanks, fascinating points.

    Those who think such a verse exists in the Bible have the Bible confused with the Athanasian Creed, formulated by man, not by God.

    Thanks to all who gave thoughtful replies.
Link 

 

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

My Answer to: This is from Greek Mythology - written long before the bible was ever thought of - does it sound familiar?


When Zeus planned to destroy an ancient race living on Earth, he sent a deluge. However, Deucalion, a son of Prometheus, and his wife Pyrrha—the Greek equivalents of the biblical Noah and his wife—put provisions into a chest and climbed into it. Carried across the waters of the flood, they landed on Mount Parnassus. After the waters receded, the couple gratefully made sacrifices to Zeus.

If you care to study more Greek mythology you will see - there are many parables that were plagiarized for the bible - that were originally stories of how Zeus and the other gods ruled earth.


Why do people discount these as "Myths" while saying the bible is not?

Thank you for this opportunity.
Moses compiled the account known today as Genesis. This may have been done by consulting existing writings or documents, as the evidence indicates. It is those and oral traditions based on those that fanciful flood legends originate, and other fanciful stories we call myths. Interestingly, the description of the ark in Genesis is sea-worthy and in accord with naval architecture. But more could be said concerning the credibility of Genesis.
So when considering which came first, it is always wise to consider different options. In this case, written or oral tradition that predates both Genesis and Greek myth may be the solution.

Source(s):

Insight on the Scriptures. "Genesis, Book of"
Credits: Deucalion throwing a rock behind him. https://www.greekmythology.com/Myths/Mortals/Deucalion/deucalion.html

My Answer to: Is the creation museum doing Christianity more harm than good?

I get the impression that at least 50% of Christians either wouldn’t take their children there at all or if they did, they wouldn’t allow them to have the impression that the “facts” being presented are truth beyond doubt. Could this type of fundamentalism be driving a wedge between Christians? Would some of them start listening to or at least not rejecting outright the words of atheists like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris?

 I understand what they are trying to accomplish, having an alternative museum to the museums dominated by atheistic evolution.

The problem is, that museum advertises young-earth creationism (YEC), the teaching that the six creative days in Genesis 1-2 are solar days. However, contrary to that claim, the events in the creation week cannot be restricted to solar days of twenty-four hours, specifically the growth of vegetation in Day 3 and the garden of Eden in Day 6. (Genesis 1:11-12; 2:8-9) Vegetation, especially the fruit trees in the garden of Eden, takes time to grow to maturity—time that greatly exceeds twelve-hours of daylight allowed for in YEC. Also, the claim that Adam would have had enough time to settle in the garden, name the animals, and get married after his “deep sleep” in a period of some hours less than twelve is strained to absurdity. (Genesis 2:15, 19-22) A plain reading of the Genesis account leaves no room for YEC.

Also, YEC holds that the sun and moon were created on Day 4, as opposed to merely appearing then to an earthly observer. Creating the sun in Day 4 would mean that God was micromanaging earth by placing and maintaining temporary light and heat sources for the first three days. This would not reflect wisdom. The Creator does not micromanage his creation, but establishes physical laws for it to function in.

So to answer your question, YEC causes people to view the Bible superficially. It also stumbles others into regarding the Bible as mythological. The later ones may become agnostic or atheistic. However, when these see that the creative works are not being confined to six solar days, it can help them see how reasonable the Bible really is.
Link