Wednesday, May 6, 2015

Mormons: Do you believe the Apostle John is still alive?



As stated in D&C 7: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/7?lang=eng

Are Peter and James alive too?

If so, are they all Mormons now serving as Mormon Apostles?

(By alive, I mean never died per D&C 7.)

Related video: A humorous look at this question: http://jimspace-comic-relief.blogspot.com/2015/03/meet-donall-and-conall.html


While I chose a "best answer," I was amazed, although not surprised, at the amount of Mormon circular reasoning and dismissive comments. This is a real problem that is simply unaccounted for in Mormonism. Claiming the Apostle John never died is a patent absurdity contained in the Mormon scriptures.

Sober and objective people see this as a fatal flaw removing Mormonism from divine revelation.

Related link:

Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
https://www.lds.org/church/leaders/quorum-of-the-twelve-apostles?lang=eng
See if you can find the Apostle John.



Does this diagram finally set the record straight on what the "trinity" actually is?


Here's the official explanation by a so-called "expert" in trinitarian theology:

Jesus is God, The Father is God, and The spirit is God
The father, son, and spirit are not the same person
There is One God
The spirit precedes from the father and the son is begotten of the father

Does this finally clarify the trinity?

My Answer:

Correct, that's Trinitarianism in a nutshell. That diagram is the Scutum Fidei meaning "Shield of the Faith."

However, it is diametrically opposed to Jesus Christ's own declaration at John 17:1-5, that the Father person is "the only true God." Thus, the God of the person Jesus is one person, the Father.

The Father resurrected Jesus from the grave and exalted him to a position Jesus did have before his earthly sojourn. Therefore, the Trinitarian Scutum Fidei is a misrepresentation of Biblical monotheism.

Source(s):

LINK

Friday, February 20, 2015

What does the apostate antichrist believe about Jesus?


1 John 4:2-3: By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already.

2 John 7: For many deceivers have gone out into the world, men who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.
(RSV)

The phrase "the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh" refers to Jesus' birth on earth (Galatians 4:4), not to his future coming. The NET Bible in its footnote concurs, saying: "This is the same confession as in 1 John 4:2 except the perfect participle used there is replaced by a present participle here. It is not clear why the author changed from a perfect participle in 1 John 4:2 to a present participle here. The perfect participle suggests a reference to the incarnation [Jesus' birth and life on earth] (past). The present participle could suggest a reference to the (future) second advent, but based on the similarity to 1 John 4:2 it is probably best to take it as referring to the incarnation [Jesus' birth and life on earth]." Thus, the point of 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 7 is the same: Denying that Jesus was human in his earthly life and ministry is apostate and of the antichrist.

Yet, some still say that 2 John 7 refers to Jesus' future coming in the flesh, thus (unwittingly?) disagreeing with the scholar(s) behind the NET Bible footnote.

Update : Hi XXX! Thanks for contributing. Well, as the NET Bible footnote said, it is probably best to take it as referring to Jesus' birth and life on earth. This agrees with the NWT-Reference footnote, which says in part: "referring to Christ’s past coming. It refers to past time, as in the case of the Gr. participle in 3Jo 3."

Regarding the two scriptures you used for support for 'dual time reference,' let me point out that "man" in 1 Timothy 2:5 would naturally refer to Jesus' experience as a man on earth during his ministry. Colossians 2:9 merely confirms that Christ's diety or divine nature exists or dwells in bodily form. Thus, all this is conveying is that Jesus' divine nature has a body. So these really do not contribute to the idea that Jesus has a physical human body outside of earth's life-sustaining atmosphere. Spirit beings such as angels and God dwell in what Jesus Christ called "the above" or "realms above" at John 8:23, a transcendent realm that Jesus said humans cannot enter at John 8:21.

Both the NET and NWT footnotes noted above harmonize with John's use of Greek, as well as with the laws of physics.

XXX asks: "Did not ALL of Jesus' miracles attest to the fact that he was above and outside of (not subject to) the laws that govern our physical universe?" Not one. Just a manipulator. [What I clearly meant by this is that Jesus was not breaking the laws of physics with his miracles, but he was temporarily manipulating mater as he used the power from his Father and God, including resurrecting others like his disciples later did.] Retaining a human body in outer space that Trinitarianism teaches per Chalcydonian dyophysitism does indeed mark a clear violation of the laws of physics that the Trinitarian Jesus must now continue to violate in micromanaging his physical human body for all eternity, just to make the Trinitarians feel all warm and fuzzy. :-) Also read Psalm 115:16 that Jesus Christ agreed with: human bodies belong on earth in accords with both the will of God and with the laws of physics that God established. Thanks for playing.

Best Answer
Asker's Choice

BAR- ANERGES

Greetings,

First, what is interesting is that even if Trinitarians apply these verses to the future coming, they cannot save themselves from being identified as Antichrist and deceivers. Because these verses clearly would apply to any religion which claimed that Jesus was both "God and man," or holding a "dual nature" instead of only "flesh"!!


Yes, there are some scholars who think 2Jn7 refers to both the past and future comings. But, as you point out Greek scholars generally agree that this refers to Christ's *past* coming:

"Jesus Christ coming in the flesh. Present middle participle of erchomai...because there the reference is to the definite historical fact of the Incarnation. There is no allusion here to the second coming of Christ."–Robertson’s Word Pictures

"Naturally this cannot refer to the coming of Jesus Christ at his future parousia, since that is not a coming en sarki [in the flesh], but en doxe [in glory] (cf. Heb 4:13, etc.). Rather, the present tense of erchomenon [coming] is a timeless characteristic of Jesus (as the one sent by God into the world), as in Jn 3:31; 6:14; 11:27.—Rudolf Bultmann, A Commentary on The Johnannine Epistles, p. 112.

The word "coming" is a participle, so even though it is the "present tense" form it doesn't inherently have a tense but is dependent on the main verb (cf. 3 Jn 3).

Theologians who use this verse in an attempt to support their personal theology that Christ will return in the flesh require their hearers to be ignorant of the original Greek and the context of Scripture.


Here are some edited statements from various articles:

From these verses, we can see that the antichrist is a liar and a deceiver, bent on destroying a person’s relationship with Christ and with God.

“Antichrist” means ‘against (or instead of) Christ.’ So in its broadest sense, the term refers to all who oppose or lyingly claim to be the Christ or his representatives. Jesus himself said: “He that is not on my side is against me [or is antichrist], and he that does not gather with me scatters”(Lk 11:23).

The words of both Jesus and John plainly indicate that the antichrist is not a single person but is made up of many individual antichrists. Moreover, because they are false prophets, one of their main objectives is religious deception.

John specifically mentions apostates as among those of the antichrist by referring to those who "went out from us," abandoning the Christian congregation. (1Jo 2:18, 19) It therefore includes "the man of lawlessness" or "son of destruction" described by Paul, as well as the "false teachers" Peter denounces for forming destructive sects and who "disown even the owner that bought them" (2Th 2:3-5; 2Pt 2:1).

Kingdoms, nations, and organizations are similarly shown to be part of the antichrist in the symbolic description at Revelation 17:8-15; 19:19-21.-Compare Ps 2:1, 2.

From those words it is evident that the antichrist, the apostate man of lawlessness is Satan's masterpiece. It is an imitation of organized Christianity and so an opposer of it. As a replacement of true organized Christianity, it finds its expression in present-day Christendom.

The word "Christendom" is a compound word meaning "Christ's domain" or "Christ's jurisdiction." Christendom has claimed this and has sent out missionaries to pagan lands in an effort to convert all the earth to become the territory of Christendom. Their missionaries have had a part, knowingly or unknowingly, in advancing the political control as well as the commercial control of Christendom in many of these countries.

This was directly contrary to Christ's words: "My kingdom is no part of this world," and "they [Jesus' disciples] are no part of the world."—John 18:36; 17:14.


Apply this basic evidence to what happened in both world wars and current conflicts. People of the same religions met on battlefields and slaughtered one another because of nationalistic differences. Each side claimed to be Christian, and each side was supported by its clergy, who claimed that God was on their side.

But, the definition of a "Christian" is "one who does what Christ would do": WWJD (1Pt.2:21). That slaughter of "Christian" by "Christian" is rotten fruitage. It is a denial of any claim to being the true Church (cf. Mt.26:52). It is truly an identification of the Antichrist!

Apostate Christianity has neither the spiritual strength nor the support of God's holy spirit to motivate people to follow the truthful teachings of Jesus Christ. For this reason, the result in Christendom is not true Christianity but in actuality antichrists, "weeds" unfit for the Kingdom (Mt13:24ff).


Yours,

BAR-ANERGES

Source:


Asker's rating & comment
Thanks, that was my thought too that the Trinitarian Jesus being 100% God on earth is in accords with the teaching of the Antichrist. Yet, Trinitarians try to say that Jesus not coming in the flesh from outer space is in accords with the teaching of the Antichrist. Irony of astronomical proportions!

Trinitarians, do you see the flawed reasoning of "I AM" in John 8:58?


Trinitarianism teaches that "I AM" is a divine name, and that it is used at John 8:58, where Jesus said according to many translations: "Before Abraham was, I am." As one apologetic Trinitarian explained:

"This is a very important verse to Trinitarians because it is one of the places we use to show that Jesus is God. We maintain that Jesus attributed the divine name of God ("I AM" from Exodus 3:14), to Himself."[1]

Now this claim can be easily tested by replacing "I AM" with another divine name or designation, like God, and observing the results.
[test]
"Before Abraham was, God."
[end of test]
This declaration as it stands is nonsensical. To make sense, it needs the words "I existed as" or "I was", or something similar: "Before Abraham was, I was God."

Does that make sense? If so, please continue reading.

The same is true with "Before Abraham was, I am." It needs more words to be complete, like "Before Abraham was, I was I AM." But, the Greek text does not say that. Therefore the Greek words 'ego eimi', translated according to many translations as "I am," are part of the sentence and should be translated likewise. "I am" is an interlinear translation or a hyper-literal translation, therefore not completing the translation process. If a Bible says something like "I have been,"[2] it shows an attempt to do just that, complete the translation process into a literal translation.

So can you see how flawed and ridiculous Trinitarian teaching is on John 8:58, regardless of its popularity?

Footnotes:
[1] Slick, Matt. John 8:58 and 10:30-33, "I am." http://carm.org/religious-movements/jehovahs-witnesses/john-858-and-1030-33-i-am

[2] The 1996 ed. New Living Translation has “Jesus answered, ‘The truth is, I existed before Abraham was even born!’” It places “I am” in a footnote. (Seen here.)

Another test in context:
Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, Lord.

Best Answer
Asker's Choice

Ginosko92

The is probably one of the lamest "proof text" that trinitarians use to prove the divinity of Christ!

To make a connection between Ex 3:14 and John 8:58 is beyond ridiculous!

First of all the correct rendition of Ex 3:14 is "I will be what I will be" as the footnote in the NIV correctly states. Ex 3:12 uses the same verb "eh·yeh" and is translated "I will". I AM THAT I AM is not the correct meaning of the divine name, it's not static as if God were waiting to do something. But God is ALWAYS in action and maneuvering things according to his will.

Second the Greek LXX (septuagint) renders Ex 3:14 as "ego emi ho on" or "I am THE ONE or THE BEING". The same vs adds that "THE ONE or THE BEING", not "I am" as trinitarians lamely argue, "has sent you"!

So to connect Ex 3:14 with John 8:58 is pure fiction and desperation to prove a man made doctrine!

Asker's rating & comment

Thank you! I'm sorry to report that no Trinitarians addressed my question. The Trinitarian use of John 8:58 is alarmingly unsophisticated, as were the Trinitarian responses. If you think Trinitarianism uses John 8:58 correctly, then you need to study this question.

Thursday, November 13, 2014

Question on the "Immortal Soul" doctrine?


Our body has a mind. For those who believe we have an immortal soul, does it have a mind too?
If Yes, does that mean we have two minds? If No, how does it do anything after the body dies?

The question seems inevitable to consider.

------------------
My preemptive responses to anticipated answers:
'No. The soul takes our body's mind.'
Response: Our body's mind is tied-into our brain, so when our brain dies, so does the mind.
'Yes, it has a mind of its own too.'
Response: How can we have two minds?
------------------

If you could use the Bible to document your answers, that would be great.

Best Answer
Those who believe in an immortal soul believe that when we die, we take with us our thoughts, personality, memories, etc.

But we know that all that stuff is tied physically to our brain.

So those who hold to this doctrine have to explain why, if the soul has the capability to carry our mind away from the body, why does the physical body even have a brain to handle these function? It is needlessly redundant.

Either we have a functioning physical brain, plus a non-functioning spiritual "brain" that starts working immediately at death, downloading information from the physical brain then taking over.

Or we have two functioning brains - a physical and spiritual - carrying on redundant double duty.

LINK

Note: The primary reasoning I use for dismissing the immortal soul doctrine is due to the Passion Narratives. See:

A Lesson from Jesus’ Rebuke
http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2013/10/a-lesson-from-jesus-rebuke-in-order-for.html

Unbelievers, I have proof that Jesus is God?


Look, in John 10:38, it says "The Father is in me and I in the Father." John 14:11 reads much the same. Jesus is your Lord and Savior!

Wait a minute...

John 14:20 - "At that day you (i.e. the disciples) will know that I am in my Father and you in me, and I in you" Herp derp merp.

So a dozen disciples are partners with Jesus and God?

Or...maybe the language is FIGURATIVE, which would make sense since Aramaic and Hebrew possess far greater capacity for metaphor than English.

CHRISTIANS, stop using that verse as proof for Jesus' divinity, k thx bye.

Best Answer
I hear ya! Furthermore, in John 10:38, 14:9-11 and 17:21 the Greek word 'en,' translated as "in" as in "in the Father" and "the Father is in me," may also be translated as "in union," as seen in 14:20 and 17:21 where the disciples are also 'en' the Son and the Father. Clearly, "in union" is the intended meaning there, and surely in the other occurrences as well. This finds support in John 17:22, 23, where the NET Bible reads:

"The glory you gave to me I have given to them, that they may be one just as we are one – 23 I in them and you in me – that they may be completely one [footnote: Or “completely unified.”], so that the world will know that you sent me, and you have loved them just as you have loved me."

Here Jesus explains that being 'en' another means being unified with another, as the NET Bible footnote points out. That unified is the intended meaning is also corroborated by John 6:56, where Jesus said: "The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood resides in me, and I in him." (NET Bible) Clearly, Jesus' body and blood cannot literally reside in all Christians simultaneously, for two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time.

So we can see that when we follow Trinitarian reasoning to its logical conclusion, that it leads to insurmountable problems.

Source:
Read more at: Exploring a Trinitarian Black Box

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Why is it so hard for some people to understand the concept of the Christian trinity?


To me its fairly simple to understand. An analogy of the Trinity is water, or H2O. Water is a liquid. Water can also be vapour. And it can be a solid, ice. The liquid state is not ice, ice is not vapour and vapour is not liquid. They are distinct. But they are all H2O. This is the same as the trinity. God the Father, the son Jesus and the Holy Spirit are distinct but all the same being.

Best Answer
The H2O illustration is on the Never Use list of Trinitarian apologists like this one:

Quote:
“The doctrine of the Trinity is like an egg: three parts, one thing.” Ever heard that? How about this, “The doctrine of the Trinity is like a three leaf clover: three leaves, one clover.” Or how about THIS, “The doctrine of the Trinity is like water: three forms (ice, steam, liquid) one substance.” But the greatest I ever heard was by a guy in one of my classes. He said that he thought that the Trinity was like 3-in-1 shampoo: three activities, one substance.” [Emphasis added.]
Stupid statements. Creative, but stupid. Don’t use them. Any of them. Ever.[1]

He prefers to use the diagrammatic Scutum Fidie instead, and calls the H2O illustration modalistic: "Ice, steam, and liquid are examples of the same nature which *at one time or another* has a particular mode of existence. Sometimes it is liquid, sometimes it is ice, and sometimes it is steam. God is not sometimes Son, sometimes Father, and sometimes Spirit. He is eternally each, always at the same time." Thus it is on the Trinitarian Never Use list.

I understand it that there are three people in the impersonal Trinitarian Godhead as shown in the scutum fidei. As one Trinitarian apologist explained:

Unlike traditional Judaism and Islam, the God of Christianity possesses a unique and mysterious plurality of personhood within its single divine essence. In other words, while God is one in being, he nevertheless exists as three distinct persons (or centers of consciousness). One way of expressing this special monotheism is to say that God is "one what and three whos." That is, in terms of what God is, God is one and only one divine being. But in terms of who God is, God is three distinct persons. (end quote)[2]

Thus God for the Trinitarian is not a person but a What, an impersonal Godhead, composed of three whos or divine people.

Yet, this is diametrically opposed to the beliefs of the Lord Jesus Christ who fearlessly declared with a doubtlessly booming voice that the Father is the "only true God." (John 17:1-5) Thus Jesus Christ clearly believed that God is a single person, the Father.

Additionally, Hebrews 5:7 informs us that Jesus Christ even relied on his Father and God to be resurrected from death, and that his prayers were favorably heard due to his his godly fear or piety.[3]

Thus, despite all the intellectual acrobats Trinitarians must go through to support their man-made, non-biblical doctrine, it still fails to accurately and scripturally describe the Lord Jesus Christ and his almighty Father, the only true God, Jehovah.


Source:
[1] Patton, C Michael. “The Trinity is Like 3-in-1 Shampoo”. . . And Other Stupid Statements. http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/20...

Popular Arguments some Trinitarians use that are on a Trinitarian "Never Use" List
http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2012/06...

[2] What a tangled web we weave...
http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/04...

[3] Hebrews 5:7 and Trinitarianism: A Compatibility Crisis
http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2012/09...