Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Is he a mormon?
Judges, angels, kings of Israel, and even Satan is the "god of this world", according to the NT. Throughout the NT it states that the disciples of Yeshua will inherit the nature of YHWH and will bear His Name. I've already posted these scriptures, do you want to see them again?"We are not stoning You for any good work, but for blasphemy, because You, who are a man, declare Yourself to be God.”
Jesus replied, “Is it not written in your Law: ‘I have said you are gods’d? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— then what about the One whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world? How then can you accuse Me of blasphemy for stating that I am the Son of God? John 10:34
In Hebrew elohim can mean gods but it also means judges. Note this.
The above was a brilliant legal defense that Jesus used. The reasoning was that the act of God in giving the law made them JUDGES of the law. In the same way the act of God in giving the revelation of the law to Jesus made him Son of God, a relational metaphor for the messiah.
No man is or will ever be a god. The best anyone could do is pretend to be a god, like Satan.
Cite scripture and we will examine it. You can say whatever you want, but if you don't cite scripture, you're just blowing hot air.Yes, I am one person. I never said I am three persons, you did. You're putting words in my mouth. Here's another question for you....Scripture says Jesus created everything. How can He create Himself?
No... find another sucker to try and beguile. Maybe God won't notice your deception. Good luck!I've already posted these scriptures, do you want to see them again?
Here BS-Filter, resorts to an ad-hominum maneuver, shifting the attention to the person presenting the arguments rather than to the arguments themselves. Greg is a very knowledgeable student of the Bible, even mentioned by top scholars in their thesis:
You can't go wrong with Greg Stafford, he's debated James White and others. His level of Biblical knowledge is impressive.
John 1:1-3.Cite scripture and we will examine it. You can say whatever you want, but if you don't cite scripture, you're just blowing hot air.
Satan is the "god of this world"
In the beginning was the word (logos), and the word (logos) was with God (Ho Theos) , and the word (logos) was theos. (like God)John 1:1-3.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The Word was WITH "τὸν Θεόν" (ton Theon)/The God, hence the Word isn't The God, but a god. Do you believe the Trinity is four persons? The Word is a person, correct? This Word is with The God/The Trinity/Or The Father and hence isn't The Trinity or The Father/The God. Are you a oneness Pentecostal? Do you believe the Son is the Father?John 1:1-3.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
Bye, run run...No... find another sucker to try and beguile. Maybe God won't notice your deception. Good luck!
The Scripture doesn't say that "all things" has limitations. Eve is mother of all humans. Common sense tells us that. Rev 3:14 doesn't mean Jesus is the first creation. It means creation begins from Jesus. The problem is you interpret from lds lens instead of Biblical.The Word was WITH "τὸν Θεόν" (ton Theon)/The God, hence the Word isn't The God, but a god. Do you believe the Trinity is four persons? The Word is a person, correct? This Word is with The God/The Trinity/Or The Father and hence isn't The Trinity or The Father/The God. Are you a oneness Pentecostal? Do you believe the Son is the Father?
The Word is "a god" or you can translate it "The Word is divine", but not The God The Word was with . The Word is obviously not The God he was with. That's Trinitarian gobbledygook nonsense.
Joh 1:3-4, “all things” in the context of John 1 are ‘all the physical things’ made “through” the Word, the same ‘all physical things’ that are referenced in Gen 1. Indeed, this is the OT background for the introductory part of John 1.
The term "all things" has its exceptions:
1Co 15:27-28 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. (28) And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
All things doesn't necessarily denote "ALL THINGS" in an absolute sense. Another example:
Gen_3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
Eve was the mother of all of the living. Was Adam living? Was Eve living? Were the animals living? Eve was the mother of all of the living that she conceived, the text doesn't have to be hyper-specific and explain that she was the mother of all of the living except Adam, or except herself (she's not her own mother), or the mother of dogs and cats, even though all of these creatures fall within the category of the living.
Jesus can be of the category of a created being even though the text says that God the Father created all things through Him. You're straining the gnat. You're being pedantic. Other verses clearly state that Jesus was created by His heavenly Father, hence the verse in question must be read in light of its immediate context and the general context of the Bible.
Rev 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God.
Heb 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the first-begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
Pro 8:22 YHWH made me as the beginning of His way, the first of His works of old.
Joh 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
Joh 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
There's no reason to read it as if it doesn't, in light of its context and the fact that there are several examples of "all" statements that aren't absolutely "all". I gave a few examples of that.The Scripture doesn't say that "all things" has limitations. Eve is mother of all humans. Common sense tells us that. Rev 3:14 doesn't mean Jesus is the first creation. It means creation begins from Jesus. The problem is you interpret from lds lens instead of Biblical.
and from the New Testament:Gen.10:10; "beginning of the kingdom of him"-"arche tes basileias autou."
Gen.49:3 ; "first of the children of me"-"arche teknon mou."
Deut.21:17;"first of the children of him"-"arche teknon autou."
Hos.1:2 "beginning of the word of Lord"-"arche logou kuriou."
These all contain the word "ARCHE" as does Rev.3:14 followed by a noun in the genitive case. What should be done is not look at the word "ARCHE" only but we must look at similar constructions which we have above. All the examples above show that the one, ones or events are the results of the action of another one. It is a passive meaning we have here, not in the sense of causing the action/results. They have the meaning of "the start of," or "the first of." Hence we would be on scriptural grounds entirely to say that the meaning of "arche", "beginning," at Rev.3:14 was also with that meaning.Mat. 24:8."beginning of pangs of birth-"arche odinon."
Mark1:1 "beginning of the good news"-"arche tou euggeliou."
Phil.4:15 "at the start of declaring of the good news"- "arche tou enaggeliou."
Jesus is the Creator because Scripture says He is. Lds doctrine isn't above Scripture.There's no reason to read it as if it doesn't, in light of its context and the fact that there are several examples of "all" statements that aren't absolutely "all". I gave a few examples of that.
You said that Eve is the mother of ALL humans. Was Adam a "human"? Was Eve his mother? It's common sense that she wasn't, and it's also common sense that Jesus isn't included in "all things" that were created through Him. You only apply your common sense when it suits your silly doctrines.
Jesus was created by God as the beginning of God’s creation. Prov. 8;22 NRSV reads “The Lord created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of long ago".
LXX Greek, same word construction using the word "arche" as found in Rev 3:14, showing that the beginning of what is being mentioned is a result or is caused by, something else (It's in the genetive case):
and from the New Testament:
These all contain the word "ARCHE" as does Rev.3:14 followed by a noun in the genitive case. What should be done is not look at the word "ARCHE" only but we must look at similar constructions which we have above. All the examples above show that the one, ones or events are the results of the action of another one. It is a passive meaning we have here, not in the sense of causing the action/results. They have the meaning of "the start of," or "the first of." Hence we would be on scriptural grounds entirely to say that the meaning of "arche", "beginning," at Rev.3:14 was also with that meaning.
Ignore all of the points I made from the Greek grammar but others won't and that's the only reason I respond to your BS. For the sake of others.Jesus is the Creator because Scripture says He is. Lds doctrine isn't above Scripture.
Your interpretation of Greek is through the lds lens. I believe the Scripture in the Bible. You believe the book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants is also Scripture. Isn't that correct?Ignore all of the points I made from the Greek grammar but others won't and that's the only reason I respond to your BS. For the sake of others.
No I don't interpret the Bible from the LDS interpretation, since I'm not even an officially, baptized member of the LDS. How many times do I have to tell you that? I've already expressed the fact that I don't agree 100% with LDS doctrine and theology, yet you continue to say I'm LDS. My interpretation of the Bible relies on the Hebrew or Greek meaning of words and the immediate and general context, not "the LDS". However, your logic is flawed, because saying that one's interpretation is based upon or influenced by the LDS doesn't automatically render that interpretation incorrect. Like always you're resorting to cheap ad-hominem rhetoric.Your interpretation of Greek is through the lds lens. I believe the Scripture in the Bible. You believe the book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants is also Scripture. Isn't that correct?
Well, you certainly don't interpret Scripture from a Biblical perspective. I suspect that you've just dipped you toe in Christianity without really studying the Scriptures.No I don't interpret the Bible from the LDS interpretation, since I'm not even an officially, baptized member of the LDS. How many times do I have to tell you that? I've already expressed the fact that I don't agree 100% with LDS doctrine and theology, yet you continue to say I'm LDS. My interpretation of the Bible relies on the Hebrew or Greek meaning of words and the immediate and general context, not "the LDS". However, your logic is flawed, because saying that one's interpretation is based upon or influenced by the LDS doesn't automatically render that interpretation incorrect. Like always you're reporting to cheap ad-hominem rhetoric.
I don't care about Evangelical or mainstream Christianity's hermeneutic, I go to the original meaning of scripture, what the author most likely meant. You don't care about that, because you're not a Christian because Christianity is consistent with the Bible, you're a Christian because it serves you as an emotional crutch or a security blanket. Like a baby, you need emotional support and you're unable to come to terms with reality and what the Bible actually says. A mountain of evidence could be presented against your silly Evangelical beliefs and you would still believe its ridiculous BS, just because you like it, and that's all that matters to you. You like it, hence it's "true".Well, you certainly don't interpret Scripture from a Biblical perspective. I suspect that you've just dipped you toe in Christianity without really studying the Scriptures.
I also like to study the Hebrew and Greek for original fuller meaning. It depends on who is gathering the evidence. JWs claim to study the Hebrew and Greek, yet they're heretics. I was a blank slate when I got saved. I was totally ignorant. I guess I got brainwashed by studying at a nondenominational Bible College.I don't care about Evangelical or mainstream Christianity's hermeneutic, I go to the original meaning of scripture, what the author most likely meant. You don't care about that, because you're not a Christian because Christianity is consistent with the Bible, you're a Christian because it serves you as an emotional crutch or a security blanket. Like a baby, you need emotional support and you're unable to come to terms with reality and what the Bible actually says. A mountain of evidence could be presented against your silly Evangelical beliefs and you would still believe its ridiculous BS, just because you like it, and that's all that matters to you. You like it, hence it's "true".
They're heretics because you and your pastor claim they're heretics? From a Jewish perspective, you're an idolater and the Jewish people are the original people of YHWH according to the Bible, not Gentiles like you. You're nothing more than an idolatrous pagan, for Bible-believing Jews. You're the worst type of pagan since you're trying to kill God for your sins. That's a unique type of wickedness, that doesn't apply to all idolaters. Even Hindus aren't trying to kill God for their sins like Trinitarian Christians are. You're not a BS-filter, you're a BS peddler.I also like to study the Hebrew and Greek for original fuller meaning. It depends on who is gathering the evidence. JWs claim to study the Hebrew and Greek, yet they're heretics. I was a blank slate when I got saved. I was totally ignorant. I guess I got brainwashed by studying at a nondenominational Bible College.
