Re: [TruthTalk] Prayer Request

[Dave]

Charles Perry Locke wrote: We consider Jesus to be one person of the Trinity, all of which are God. Angels are created beings distinct in nature from humans. They most likely pre-existed human creation, and humans are a unique creation apart from angels. Humans did not pre-exist their birth as spirits. DAVEH:  That is the part that I'm trying to find out about your (and Slade's) belief.  What is it that makes you think spirits could not have been created prior to mortality?  There must be some passages in the Bible that lead you to that conclusion?  Or.....is it merely traditional Protestant dogma that has instilled such a belief? First, none of the churches that I have attended, no commentaries that I have read, and none of the teachers I have learned under ever even suggested that there may have been a spiritual existence prior to life. DAVEH:   I understand that is common Christian belief..  But, I would think there is a reason the common beliefs evolved that way.  I thought there might be a passage in the Bible that would persuade Christian thought to develop along that line of reasoning. This leads me to believe that it is not, and never has been, a common Christian belief. Second, I find no positive evidence, i.e., nowhere in the Bible where it is positively stated that there was no pre-existence of humans, but then again I find no positive statements iondicating that there is, either. I agree with Slades's comment that the foreknowledge of God accounts for any biblical statements that suggest a pre-existence to you. DAVEH:  Do you think the foreknowledge of God figures into the passage Slade originally quoted....... As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. His students asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Yeshua answered, "Neither did this man sin, nor his parents; but, that the works of God might be revealed in him. (John 9:1-3) ......?  To me, this seems like indirect evidence there was some cognition of a pre-mortal existence.  In LDS lore there seems to be only one type of being, which during it's existence may progress through several stages...spirit, angel, man, and god (I believe you call this "eternal progression"). This is like insect progression...egg, larva, pupa, and adult. The LDS jesus is not distinct in the LDS model. He is just another insect making his eternal march toward LDS godhood. DAVEH:  You are mixing some truths as to what I believe with some inaccuracies.  Your assumption that /Jesus is not distinct/ is incorrect.  Jesus was not progressing toward Godhood.....he was God prior to his mortal life.  However, he consisted of only spirit form prior to his birth. Now, I find that interesting because of the LDS thought (paraphrasing) that what man is, god once was, what god is, man shall become. Wasn't the LDS god once a man, DAVEH:  I assume you believe your Protestant God was once a man too, do you not? and his god (father) once a man, and his god (father) once a man, etc. DAVEH:  Though it is not doctrinal, it is widely believed by many (most) LDS folks. Why did the LDS jesus get to circumvent this seemingly natural order of the LDs eternal progression of gods? DAVEH:  He was the firstborn of the spirits in the pre-mortal existence.  (I know that doesn't exactly answer your question in detail, but it is a significant occurrence, IMO.) You know, the Bible does not support any this. DAVEH:  I didn't say it does.  You were the one who brought it up.  I'm not trying to quote LDS Scripture here to support my beliefs.....as you know, that is not my purpose.  I just wonder why you don't understand the pre-mortal spirit implication Jn 9:1-3 as I do. After his resurrection, he then consisted of a spirit body clothed with an exalted physical body of flesh and bone.  From what I've learned on TT, I assume that is not too much different than what you might believe? Well, aside from the fact that we are trying to compare the fictional LDS jesus with the real Jesus, a comparison I find mainly a useless exercise and a waste of time, some of the words and thoughts do parallel each other, DAVEH:  I don't understand why you think discussing your understanding of the nature of God is a waste of time, even if it does parallel my (LDS biased) belief.  If a Protestant wanted to discuss the nature of God, I would think you would not find that a waste of time.  Is it just because I'm a Mormon that you don't want to condescend to my level to discuss God?     Let me lay out what I was trying to explain.  I believe Jesus existed as a spirit being in the OT.  His spirit body then became clothed in a body of flesh and blood for a brief span some 2000 years ago.  At his death, the spirit and physical body departed, only to be reunited a short time later in a resurrected form of flesh and bones.  I believe he continues to be a spirit being that is clothed with physical body of flesh and bones to this day.  Now Perry, that is pretty much doctrinal LDS theology, to which I subscribe.  From my discussions with other TTers in the past, I thought this is pretty much doctrinal thinking that is shared by many Protestants, and even independent thinkers such as yourself.  IF I'm wrong in that assessment, please correct me.  To me, this is related to the nature of God, and I don't quite understand why you would think it is a waste of your time to discuss it.  but I do not think spiritual reality is at all like the LDS think it is. DAVEH:  I realize there are many things I believe with which you disagree.   I'm not trying to tell you that I am right, and you are wrong.  I'm just trying to figure out why you disagree.  Some things (such as my belief that Jesus' Heavenly Father has a physical body of flesh and bone) is very easy for me to understand why you don't accept it.  So, there is really not a reason to discuss it, even if you were to bring it up in an effort to denigrate my beliefs.  But, there are many things that seem pretty obvious to me as I read the Bible that make me wonder why you see them exactly opposite.  Jn 9:1-3 is one of those passages.  Perhaps my above explanation of the nature of God also fits into that realm, but I'm not sure.....since you are reluctant to waste your time discussing it.     BTW Perry......I have not forgotten our previous /quick and dead/ discussion.  I've done a little studying of it, but need to do much more.  It really is a topic that interests me, and I do intend to get back to it as I have time.  I just don't feel knowledgeable at this point to discuss it much. Hey, whenever you get around to it. Let me know if you want off the hook. DAVEH:  That is very kind of you, Perry.  No problem. I have made my point, and if there were any readily available examples to support your interpretation I am sure they would have popped up pretty quickly. DAVEH:  Your assessment of quick referring to alive folks certainly seems accurate.  I'm just not sure that dead as used in quick & dead should be included, as you seem to think it should be.  My thinking (without adequate study) is that quick and dead is a reference that what is being discussed applies to both those who are alive, and also those who are dead.  But......I definitely need some time to look at the individual words and how they are used. Did you get your interpretation from the Bible, DAVEH:  I've only spent about a half hour or less on it so far, and most has been strictly Bible oriented.  or from some LDS dogma? DAVEH:  My beliefs are certainly biased by dogma.  But.......you knew that, didn't you!   The question to you is......are yours?!?!?!   :-) -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.