|
David Miller wrote: DAVEH: ??? I realize the notion is extremely out of your realm of thinking, but I am surprised you would think it is beyond my realm of understanding. Why would you use the term surely to suggest what you not think Jesus was conveying as he spoke? To my LDS biased perspective, the passage makes literal sense that gives insight as to the true nature of the gospel plan. As one LDS commentator (Bruce R McConkie) explained regarding 19-20.....DaveH wrote: It would be difficult, perhaps impossible, to find two versus of scripture with deeper and more more glorious meaning than these two. Jesus is the replica of his Father--thinking, saying, doing, achieving, attaining, as the Father has done before. (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary vol 1) .......I do understand your reluctance to accept my understanding of the passage, DavidM. With what you know about LDS theology, does it not fit in? May I ask how you perceive its message? DAVEH: I might be in agreement on that with you in a sense. Since Lucifer and his followers were ejected from Heaven, temptation does not exist there. And, were our Father to encounter temptation at some point (perhaps if he were to visit one of his prophets on earth as an example), he would have power over that temptation, and would not succumb. But being in heaven as such....you are right....there is no temptation there. (Which in my opinion is why one will not be able to end up in heaven until he becomes holy...but that's another thread.)DaveH wrote: DAVEH:K ??? Are you suggesting he was not God at that point?DaveH wrote: DAVEH: Hmmmmmm....That is foreign to my way of thinking. As I see it, Jesus was God of the OT, and becoming mortal did not change that at all. I think this is where our different perspectives of me believing in 2 Gods (Jesus and his Heavenly Father) as to your perspective of believing only one God existed at the same time, affects how we perceive this. To me, that Jesus was lesser than his Father, or even the angels does not abdicate his power. Had he wanted to crush Satan beneath his toes, he had the power to do it. Even the devil pointed out to him, he still had the power and did not have to suffer.He was of human flesh. He had lust within his flesh, and therefore he was able to be enticed by the lust of his flesh. As man he could be tempted. As God, he could not be tempted. The Phil. 2 passage speaks of him emptying himself, and Heb. 2:9 says he was made a little lower than the angels. Although he was God in terms of his identity, he had laid aside some of that glory that he had, and because of that, he was able to be tempted. With our heavenly Father, this would not be so. Our heavenly Father cannot be tempted to sin. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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. |
- Re: [TruthTalk] Belief Dave Hansen
- Re: [TruthTalk] Belief David Miller
- Re: [TruthTalk] Belief Dave Hansen
- Re: [TruthTalk] Belief David Miller
- Re: [TruthTalk] Belief Charles Perry Locke
- Re: [TruthTalk] Belief David Miller
- Re: [TruthTalk] Belief Dave Hansen
- Re: [TruthTalk] Belief Charles Perry Locke
- Re: [TruthTalk] Belief Dave Hansen
- Re: [TruthTalk] Belief Charles Perry Locke
- [TruthTalk] Is Perry an ... Dave Hansen

