michael douglas wrote:
DAVEH: Joseph Smith was the first to mention it While Canonized Scripture alludes to it, the comments by JS were not Canonized.DAVEH: As far as I know, it is all a matter of speculation. I don't recall seeing any official comments. The assumption that God continues to reveal his secrets to his servants the prophets implies that there are most likely secrets to be revealed at any given time, assuming the Lord has not yet revealed all knowledge. Michael......My guess would be that the answer you are looking for may not be revealed until 'the end', if at all. Until then, it is a matter of speculation, IMO.michael douglas wrote:> >>Michael D: Dave H, I am interested in finding out how did God become a man,DAVEH: I don't have a definitive answer, Michael. But if you want me to speculate, I would say our Heavenly Father became exalted in the same way his Only Begotten Son became exalted.
DAVEH: Assuming you are referring to God the Father: As man is, God once was is a popular LDS belief.-Michael D: OK, But the critical question then would be how did Father become a man (understanding your position that he was such before becoming God). And can you give us LDS sources for this?
Michael D: Dave H., This is very interesting and equally disturbing to me. If there are no sources of scripture to support this 'speculation' then where does this whole theory about God first being a man then becoming God come from?
DAVEH: I was not building my faith on it......I was merely answering your question. I don't know that any LDS folks build there faith on it either. Our faith is in Jesus.How can one build their faith in a supposed eternal destiny on "assumption", "most likely", and "my guess" .
DAVEH: Since you are below quoting PS, let me quote PS 82:6.......It seems like a whole lot is based upon this, down to man's supposed destiny of becoming a god
"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High."
........Michael, does that not suggest that "man's supposed destiny" is "of becoming a god"?
DAVEH: Sure......Jesus was 'God' prior to becoming a man, and before he became exalted.... How, would you say then this 'speculation' squares off with Ps 90:2 - '...even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.' Strong's indicates (5769) that 'everlasting' means always or eternity. So, can t he doctrine of God being once a man then being exalted ever be legit???
DAVEH: You must have quoted the reference wrong......or, I'm reading it wrong!Apart from the above, here is Deuteronomy 23:19
DAVEH: Take that comment as a whole and what does it imply, Michael? That God AS A MAN will not lie, which is the opposite of a typical MAN WHO DOES LIE.- 'God is not a man, that He should lie;
DAVEH: Ain't that an interesting comment. Jesus is the son of "man". Do you literally believe that, Michael? Evidently not.neither the son of man that he should repent...'
DAVEH: No I didn't, Michael. I think you misunderstood me. Jesus was God BEFORE he was exalted. I have repeatedly said that I believe Jesus is the God of the OT, and he wasn't exalted until NT times.Now we know that Jesus is a man who has been exalted. (You alluded above that this made him God)
DAVEH: You are leaving off the part of the comment that defines the nature of God. "He is not a man,"......"that He should lie,". Do you understand what it means when those two phrases are connected, Michael. If you separate one of them from the other, then it totally changes the meaning. Let me give you an example. Instead of dropping the second half of the phrase, let's drop the first half of the phrase. It then becomes.......There is a problem with applying that to the Father, because as Deut. 23 shows, He said He is not a man,
"that He should lie"
.........Well, I don't think anybody would disagree with me on this, God doesn't lie. But ignoring the first half of the phrase makes it sound like "He should lie"!!! Likewise, ignoring the second half makes it sound like God is "not a man". But that is not what the verse implies.....quite the opposite! In reality, God (The Father) is a(n exalted) man, that cannot lie. Have I explained it adequately, Michael?
DAVEH: I think the Lord was differentiating himself from 'normal' men, who don't have the strength of God.which denies any claim to Him having been a man and exalted to His God status. Cf. Hosea 11:9.
DAVEH: I did. Furthermore, there are several Biblical comments that infer his Father is an exalted man......Can you address the above for me...
".......he that hath seen me hath seen the Father;......" Jn 14:9
.......and......
"Who being the brightness of his glory, and the EXPRESS IMAGE OF HIS PERSON, and ......." Heb 1:3
......and......
"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, BEING IN THE FORM OF GOD, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" Phi 2:6-7
.......and, there are numerous Bible passages that personify God.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
