Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2

[Dave Hansen]

Charles Perry Locke wrote: From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Slade (actually, Kay) Henson wrote: So, you're saying...yes, you believe in multiple gods, DAVEH:  Yes........does not the Bible suggest likewise?  Look at PS 82:6...... A mormon prooftext. Claim that men become gods, then find some scripture that seems to support it. This type of activity occurs in Mormonism because the LDS regard the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and covenants to be the prime documents in their belief, and then try to  read them into Bible. DAVEH:  I will agree to that, Perry.  I'm glad to see you have finally come to that conclusion.  My beliefs are not solely dependent on Bible interpretation, as is so common for many folks.  Yet when people (like Kay) ask me why I believe as I do, I try not to bury them with LDS Scriptures, but rather offer my support from Biblical evidences.  I'm not sure why you have a problem with this, Perry, as I'm only trying to frame my believes with supporting passages with which most TTers are familiar.  Call it prooftexting or whatever else you feel belittles my explanations.......but is that a problem for you? There are many other such prooftexts, like baptism for the dead, the two sticks of ezekiel representing the Book of Mormon and the Bible, and "another flock" representing the hebrews that descended from those who migrated to America just after the tower of Babyl fell. All prooftexts. DAVEH:  You say that as though it is a crime, Perry.  I've got the feeling I could copy and paste the whole Bible to this post and you would consider it prooftexting.   :-)     That's OK though.  If anybody asks me a question regarding my beliefs, I'll continue quoting Biblical passages I feel pertain to my beliefs.   If you want to counter each with a prooftexting complaint, that's OK.....I understand your need to undermine my comments.   Though I would prefer you respond with a contrasting explanation of your perspective.  I think that would benefit all of us more than simply crying.......prooftext........every time I post a Bible passage and my understanding of it.  After all....you really don't want me to quit responding to questions, do you???   :-\ .......Now, most Protestants will claim that the term god was not used correctly here---that it really means judges (vs 1).  However, IF that were accurate, what logic would prevail for Jesus to use vs 6 as a defense........ *I have said, ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.* The term was used correctly here, but the meaning is "those who sit in judgement for God", not gods as in exalted men. DAVEH:  Then why did Jesus use that as a defense from those who were claiming he was making himself as God, Perry?  (Jn 10:33)  Are you suggesting that acting as a judge was blasphemous?     Would you explain what was meant by Ps 82:1........ God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. .........When I look it up in my (non-LDS) concordance, it says the root of gods is Elohim, which also applies to how it was used in verse 6.  When I looked up gods as used by Jesus in Jn 10:34, it says the root is theos, an object of worship.  Neither reflects implication of being a judge instead of a deity.  Is my concordance dated or incorrect on this, Perry?  What am I missing???     Now you've got me wondering, Perry.   You quoted..... those who sit in judgement for God .......as the intended meaning of gods in vss 1 & 6......is that correct?   What root word(s) do you use to come to that conclusion?  Is that something Protestantism concluded to explain an otherwise difficult passage that contradicts the T-Doctrine? The text goes to indicate that these men would still die like men...why would that be so if they were gods? It is because although they were doiong the work of God, were still mere men. Besides, why would they be called gods if they did not become gods (according to the Mormon view) until after they die, DAVEH:   Could it be that they were foreordained to be such, much as was the Saviour?  IOW....how could he be called the Redeemer before he died?  Does that make sense, Perry? and not all do. *Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?* In many instances Jesus, when he was talking to knowledgable Jews, would merely mention a verse from what we call the Old Testament, and that would recall a whole teaching, or what we might call a chapter, to the hearers. DAVEH:  When I do such, you call it prooftexting, Perry.  Do you think the Lord's detractors thought the same way when he quoted a verse? There are other examples, like "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Mat 27:46) as a reference to Psalm 22. Such a reference would bring to mind the whole chapter, or teaching, thus revealing to those who were present and knowledgable the prophecy that was being fulfilled at that moment. This is equivalent to our saying "the 23rd Psalm" to bring to mind "The Lord is my shepherd...", or John 3:16 to bring to mind "For God so loved...". Perry -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.