Aimiel, can you elaborate on your title as "prophet"?

[The Berean]

Aimiel,

you stated this in a previous thread:
Another glaring proof of failure to discern. Neither of us were joking. Can't speak for Elohiym's personal life, but I have yet to see him proclaim (or otherwise pretend) that he is God. I am a prophet. Were I to deny it, I would be a liar.
I'm curious can you elaborate on this further, please.

The Berean

[Sozo]

:kookoo:

[Granite]

Ditto.

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by The Berean

Aimiel,

you stated this in a previous thread:
I am a prophet. Were I to deny it, I would be a liar.

I'm curious can you elaborate on this further, please.Do you need a dictionary definition, a description of my belief of what a 'modern day' prophet is or why I believe prophets are still in existence, as are pastors, evangelists, teachers and apostles?

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Aimiel

I believe prophets are still in existence

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by Sozo

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. Yes, and there are many more false prophets such as yourself, than there are true, such as myself.

[Granite]

Great. Urinating contest, here we come...

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Aimiel

Yes, and there are many more false prophets such as yourself, than there are true, such as myself. The only person on this entire site who thinks you are a prophet is YOU, and YOU are an idiot!

If YOU were a prophet, YOU would stop following and promoting the false prophet Kim Clement.

The bible speaks plainly about someone who endorses a false prophet and what is their eventual outcome...

"And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever."

[Aimiel]

:blabla:

[Jackielabby]

A contemporary prophet eh?....like Jim Jones or David Kouresh?
Just give us PROOF.

[Aimiel]

What's next, are you going to suggest that I read your mind or levitate? God doesn't do parlour tricks. I suggest that you repent and seek God, while He is near.

[Jackielabby]

Are you the Messiah?

[Jackielabby]

Losing your faith is a lot like losing your virginity
you don't realise how irritating it was 'til it's gone.

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by Jackielabby

Are you the Messiah? No longer I live, but Christ lives in me, The Hope of Glory. :up:

Of course I'm not The Messiah. He lives in me, though. He has spoken to others, many times, through me. Several times He has given me prophecy for congregations. The very testimony of Jesus that Christians speak to others comes from The Spirit of Prophecy. We all ought to covet to prophecy. Walking in His Perfect Love is our goal, and one of the tools to get there is prophecy. :thumb:

[Jackielabby]

Jeez, I am in total awe. Prove it and make me a believer. My mind is open.

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by Jackielabby

Jeez, I am in total awe. Prove it and make me a believer. My mind is open. You'e lying.

[Lucky]

In response to Sozo...Originally posted by Aimiel

Yes, and there are many more false prophets such as yourself, than there are true, such as myself. Please show us where Sozo has made a false prophecy.

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by Lucky

(Aimiel) please show us where Sozo has made a false prophecy. When he shows that I have, I'll stop calling myself a prophet. Until then, his calling me a 'false prophet' is merely a personal attack, and demonstrates his lack of integrity. God doesn't allow such 'schisms' in His Body, much less anoint them to any office of the Five-fold Ministry.

[Granite]

What. A. Crock.

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Aimiel

When he shows that I have, I'll stop calling myself a prophet. Until then, his calling me a 'false prophet' is merely a personal attack, and demonstrates his lack of integrity. God doesn't allow such 'schisms' in His Body, much less anoint them to any office of the Five-fold Ministry.

I have never claimed to be a prophet, YOU have.

I am not calling you a false prophet because you have made false prophecies, but because you are not a prophet at all.

YOU have repeatedly endorsed a well know false prophet, and that destroys all your credibility to claim anything concerning yourself.

YOU are deluded into thinking that YOU are special, and your pride will not let you be otherwise.

[Aimiel]

:blabla:

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Aimiel

:blabla:

Based on your credibilty, I will take that as one of your prophecies.

[Aimiel]

Based on your lack of substance and judgemental tone, I've ignored your insults, which are nearly as feeble as the rest of your writing.

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Aimiel

I've ignored your insults

You've sure fooled us! :crackup:

At least your consistent in your false proclamations.

:chuckle:

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by Sozo

You've sure fooled us! I wasn't trying to fool anyone. If I were to hurl insults back at you, you'd probably be in tears by now. :ha:

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Aimiel

If I were to hurl insults back at you, you'd probably be in tears by now. :ha:

Wait a minute... let me get my Kleenex.


Okay... I'm ready... go ahead

[The Berean]

Originally posted by Aimiel

Do you need a dictionary definition, a description of my belief of what a 'modern day' prophet is or why I believe prophets are still in existence, as are pastors, evangelists, teachers and apostles?

Aimiel,

Sorry it took me so long to respond. I would humbly request all the above that you listed. I haven't posted much on TOL and I just wanted to know your beliefs. I do have some questions, though.

1) In your view do "modern day" prophets differ from the OT prophets?

2) How do you respond to the cessationist view that the office of prophet and apostle were part of the foundation of the Church and thus no longer needed today?

3) What are we to do with "modern-day" prophets that give false prophecies?

[jeb888]

Aimiel

Originally posted by Aimiel

Yes, and there are many more false prophets such as yourself, than there are true, such as myself.

The following comments are not meant to be an attack at you or to disrespect you.

I don’t believe you are a prophet because a true prophet would not defend his calling like you do. The office of a prophet is something that becomes evident when it’s demonstrated rather than the prophet trying to convince people he is one by reasoning or much less arguing and exchanging insults with them.

A true prophet or a modern day prophet becomes evident by his works, rather than his words alone. Words will definitely be part of his prophetic calling, but these by themselves prove nothing. The demonstration of the power of God accompanying the words is what makes a true prophet evident, so much so that he would no longer have to prove he is one, but he would not be able to prove he isn’t.

You may be called to be one, but at this time it’s very doubtful you have been released and sent by God to be one.

God is good!

[Lucky]

Originally posted by Sozo

Wait a minute... let me get my Kleenex.


Okay... I'm ready... go ahead
:chuckle:

[STONE]

Originally posted by jeb888

Aimiel



The following comments are not meant to be an attack at you or to disrespect you.

I don’t believe you are a prophet because a true prophet would not defend his calling like you do. The office of a prophet is something that becomes evident when it’s demonstrated rather than the prophet trying to convince people he is one by reasoning or much less arguing and exchanging insults with them.

A true prophet or a modern day prophet becomes evident by his works, rather than his words alone. Words will definitely be part of his prophetic calling, but these by themselves prove nothing. The demonstration of the power of God accompanying the words is what makes a true prophet evident, so much so that he would no longer have to prove he is one, but he would not be able to prove he isn’t.

You may be called to be one, but at this time it’s very doubtful you have been released and sent by God to be one.

God is good!
Let's be both fair and biblical in this. Maybe someone could list some of the prophecies of Amiel so to prove he is not a prophet of God.
Many who disagree with his views or sees any human frailties in him will typically judge him false. Should we also throw out Elijah, Jeremiah, and Johah for their times of weakness?

[godrulz]

Without judging Aimiel specifically, do some of you believe in a five-fold ministry in the local church? Or do you just have a problem with Aimiel being one of them? If pastors, teachers, evangelists are valid today, why not apostles and prophets? There is no exegetical reason to cut 2/5. It is a preconceived theology that does not recognize these gifts/offices.

Nice to not be sozo's punching bag at the moment.

[jeb888]

Originally posted by STONE

Let's be both fair and biblical in this. Maybe someone could list some of the prophecies of Amiel so to prove he is not a prophet of God.
Many who disagree with his views or sees any human frailties in him will typically judge him false. Should we also throw out Elijah, Jeremiah, and Johah for their times of weakness?


Could you list some of these? I'm open, would not want to be the one to touch the anointed of God, or even come close to it. And definitely I would not want to mess with Elijah, Jeremiah, or Johah. :)

God is good!

[jeb888]

Originally posted by godrulz

Without judging Aimiel specifically, do some of you believe in a five-fold ministry in the local church? Or do you just have a problem with Aimiel being one of them? If pastors, teachers, evangelists are valid today, why not apostles and prophets?

Absolutely, and they (apostles and prophets) should be part of the local church, but sadly in most local churches they are not. I see nothing in the NT that would even hint to me that they would “exist until a certain day in history and after this we will only have pastors, evangelist and teachers.” Maybe we just needed an excuse for not having any around.

And I don’t have a problem with Aimiel being one, or anyone else for that matter. Like Stone pointed out, prophets are human and sometimes you could get on their nerves and make them do stupid things and behave in an unprophetic manner. :)

God is good!

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by The Berean

Aimiel,

Sorry it took me so long to respond. I would humbly request all the above that you listed (... a dictionary definition, a description of my belief of what a 'modern day' prophet is or why I believe prophets are still in existence, as are pastors, evangelists, teachers and apostles? ). I haven't posted much on TOL and I just wanted to know your beliefs. I do have some questions, though.Well, I would refer you to your favorite dictionary for its definition of the word, "prophet." My personal belief is that prophets, as apostles, pastors, evangelists and teachers, are a 'five-fold' ministry gift to The Body of Christ. He also told us how long these ministry gifts would last:

He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; but speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

You'll notice that The Body of Christ has not yet come into the unity of the faith, etc., etc. Many people don't notice this, but agree with their faithless denomination's dogma of un-scriptural belief that the ministry gifts of prophet and apostle have passed away. They have not.1) In your view do "modern day" prophets differ from the OT prophets?Yes and no. They are different, in that John was the last of the 'Old Testament' type of prophet, and Jesus said that the least in The Kingdom was greater than he. What would be so great if there were no prophecy?2) How do you respond to the cessationist view that the office of prophet and apostle were part of the foundation of the Church and thus no longer needed today?See answer above. I try to keep religionists from clouding my view of scriptures and Truth.3) What are we to do with "modern-day" prophets that give false prophecies?The same thing that we do with Pastors who give a bad sermon, teachers that teach an error or evangelists that abscond with the cash. Rebuke, correct and edify them. There isn't one that we can reject, since Jesus said, "...whosoever will, let him come unto Me..." We're not expected to treat prophets or apostles as gods, and believe that every word they say is from God. Neither are we to throw out the baby with the bath-water. The point is, when we disregard The Lord, Who still anoints prophets and apostles, we've placed ourselves in jeopardy. He wants us to discern not only apostles and prophets, but those other gifts, which we simply say are who they profess to be, without any question. He wants us to discern who really is a pastor, evangelist or teacher, because these offices are really more important than the other two, which get so much attention because of the conceived power they carry. Yes, it is a great and terrible thing to speak for The Lord and to open your mouth as the oracle of God and say what He wants people to hear, but that is not to be our focus or our stumblingblock, whichever way we decide. We are to focus on Him, and when we do, He will give us discernment, and that is more important than most people realize. It is one of the most important things a Christian can nourish. We need to have our 'senses' exercised to discern good and evil.

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by jeb888

I don’t believe you are a prophet because a true prophet would not defend his calling like you do.What do you think I should do, deny the truth? I don't wear a badge, or indiscrimanetly tell people, "I am a Prophet!!!" If I were to deny it, I would be lying. The office of a prophet is something that becomes evident when it’s demonstrated rather than the prophet trying to convince people he is one by reasoning or much less arguing and exchanging insults with them.You are correct, but, again, God does not perform on cue. He does as He wills.You may be called to be one, but at this time it’s very doubtful you have been released and sent by God to be one.You don't even know me, and you believe you can say this with authority? I'm sorry, but I've learned to believe all things, hope all things and endure all things; and I haven't found failure yet. God has many times warned me, in advance, when someone is using Christianity (most times those professing to be one of the five-fold ministry gifts) as a scam to bilk people of money, and it is a plague on The Body of Christ. That doesn't cause me to walk around assuming or presuming that someone isn't what they profess. It causes me to believe them, and agree, except God tells me otherwise. Besides, if you're still listening to your mind, you're still carnal. Those who would be called The Sons of God are to be led by The Spirit of The Lord, not their suspicions. :angel:

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by STONE

Let's be both fair and biblical in this. Maybe someone could list some of the prophecies of Amiel so to prove he is not a prophet of God. That would be very interesting, since God has not once released me to give a single prophecy on TOL. I've done many elsewhere, but here there isn't faith to receive them, and He is always watching out to keep from stepping on someone's toes with His Power. He will never cause someone to offend one of His Lambs. :thumb:

[godrulz]

Do you function out of a local church in your gift? Does the word 'presbytery' mean anything to you (a group of prophets who travel together to prophesy over people and set ministries in place; Restoration Movement/Tabernacle of David/Portland, Oregon= Bible Temple)? Do you function individually, or with 2 or 3 other prophets for balance? Do you tend to give personal prophecies, or more to a group? Are some of your prophecies more words of knowledge or discernment (scammers?).

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by godrulz

Do you function out of a local church in your gift?Yes, mostly.Does the word 'presbytery' mean anything to you (a group of prophets who travel together to prophesy over people and set ministries in place; Restoration Movement/Tabernacle of David/Portland, Oregon= Bible Temple)? To me, presbytery doesn't mean any specific denomination.Do you function individually, or with 2 or 3 other prophets for balance?If by 'function' you mean speak, I have yet to see more than one person give the same word at the same time, though nothing that God does would surprise me. I have 'heard' what someone else was prophecying to a congregation one time, which was God showing me how accurate the prophecier was. Do you tend to give personal prophecies, or more to a group?More personal, but those given to congregations are more memorable. Often knowledge shared (in my heart) during a prophecy is 'taken away' immediately. Most often that type of 'knowledge' which, I believe, The Lord gives to make the tone more clear and allow the prophecy to be aimed better by the speaker, is shown to be 'disposable' (meaning it will be erased) when it is given. I have often been surprised by the depth, amount and privacy of this type of knowledge, but, knowing that God is doing it, am always confident that He knows what He's doing, and always find that it has been removed with no side-effects, no matter how hairy it might seem at the time of the gifting of it.Are some of your prophecies more words of knowledge or discernment (scammers?). I have had words of knowledge, and wisdom. Discernment is something that every Christian needs. One day, I believe, Christians will have to use this gift just to survive.

[godrulz]

Would you agree that there is a difference between the office of the prophet (Acts; Eph. 4) and the isolated gift of prophecy as the Spirit moves on any member of the Body (I Cor. 12-14)?

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by godrulz

Would you agree that there is a difference between the office of the prophet (Acts; Eph. 4) and the isolated gift of prophecy as the Spirit moves on any member of the Body (I Cor. 12-14)? Of course.

[Jackielabby]

Still waiting for the utmost of miracles from our resident 'prophet'....the conversion of an atheist. You state that I am lying?? And you are not?? You sound an awful lot like David Kouresh.

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by Jackielabby

My mind is open.


You sound an awful lot like David Kouresh. Those two statements don't jive, unless you're lying.

[Jackielabby]

You reckon you are a prophet and you say that I'm lying.

[Sozo]

:think:

[Jackielabby]

Just because you don't agree with me.
I noticed under your name the word, 'intolerant' ....how apt!

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Jackielabby

Just because you don't agree with me.
I agree with you about Aimiel.

[Jackielabby]

I am genuinely sorry for that faux pas. I will not do it again.

[Crow]

Jackielabby, this forum does not permit the Lord's name to be used as an explicative. Here are our rules (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=56916#post56916). I am unable to remove your offensive and blasphemous post as I do not moderate this specific fourm, but I will see that it is removed. And should you continue in inapproprate usage of our Lord's name, I will see that you are removed as well.

:crow:

[Jackielabby]

already removed by yours truly and I agree it was a bit over the top.
I am sorry.

[Crow]

Originally posted by Jackielabby

already removed by yours truly and I agree it was a bit over the top.
I am sorry.

Thank you. I will remove it from my quote as well.

[jeb888]

Originally posted by Aimiel

What do you think I should do, deny the truth? I don't wear a badge, or indiscrimanetly tell people, "I am a Prophet!!!" If I were to deny it, I would be lying. :angel:

Ok, clarification... I was referring to defending your belief that you are a prophet, I never said or implied anything about lying. I believe everyone reading this thread has no doubt that you believe you are a prophet, and that you have already said that you believe this be the TRUTH. If you are a true prophet you should let God defend your calling, that’s what I meant or should’ve said clearer.

A true prophet is my belief, is so sure of what he is that he could care less if people believe it or not, he is happy enough with God’s love and approval of him, and would spend very little time trying to prove he is a prophet especially to people that obviously do not want to believe it.

[jeb888]

Aimiel, to the question from Berean: "What are we to do with "modern-day" prophets that give false prophecies?" You answered:

Originally posted by Aimiel
The same thing that we do with Pastors who give a bad sermon, teachers that teach an error or evangelists that abscond with the cash. Rebuke, correct and edify them.

Excellent answer!

[The Berean]

Aimiel,

Thank you for your answers. I have another question. Do you believe there is a difference bewtwen a "modern-day" apostle and the original 12 Apostles? Is there a difference in annointing, authority, and gifts between the two groups. Some attacked Paul's claim on apostleship because it was claimed that Paul did not see Jesus in person and Jesus did not select him directly to be an Apostle. Paul countered that he did see the Resurrected Jesus on the road to Damascus.

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Aimiel

Those two statements don't jive, unless you're lying.

Maybe they are true.

How are you different from the world.

Do you think reflecting the world and screaming I have faith is what Jesus wants?

[godrulz]

Originally posted by The Berean

Aimiel,

Thank you for your answers. I have another question. Do you believe there is a difference bewtwen a "modern-day" apostle and the original 12 Apostles? Is there a difference in annointing, authority, and gifts between the two groups. Some attacked Paul's claim on apostleship because it was claimed that Paul did not see Jesus in person and Jesus did not select him directly to be an Apostle. Paul countered that he did see the Resurrected Jesus on the road to Damascus.

The original 12 had and will have a unique role in the kingdom. Paul was an apostle, a 'sent one'. Modern apostles are different and would be rooted in a local church. Definitions vary, but they are more than missionaries. Perhaps one who plants many churches and oversees many congregations would function as an apostle, a mature ministry that gives oversight and birthing to many congregations.

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by jeb888

If you are a true prophet you should let God defend your calling, that’s what I meant or should’ve said clearer.My thoughts exactly. Again, as I said, I'm not trying to prove anything, but to deny my office would be lying.A true prophet is my belief, is so sure of what he is that he could care less if people believe it or not, he is happy enough with God’s love and approval of him, and would spend very little time trying to prove he is a prophet especially to people that obviously do not want to believe it. I don't think I could care less. There is no evidence that anyone has that I'm heretical or a 'false' prophet, and yet I'm rejected, out-of-hand. Gives me insight into how Jesus felt.

[Granite]

Aimiel, stop being so full of yourself.

Question: how would you define a "prophet" and a prophet's role or gifts?

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by The Berean

Do you believe there is a difference bewtwen a "modern-day" apostle and the original 12 Apostles?Yes, and in similar fashion to that of the two prophet offices. Is there a difference in annointing, authority, and gifts between the two groups.Obviously the original 12 (not Paul) were the ones who Jesus gave special authority, and Paul also became an apostle, as did others mentioned in scripture. One of them was a woman, named Junia.Some attacked Paul's claim on apostleship because it was claimed that Paul did not see Jesus in person and Jesus did not select him directly to be an Apostle. Yes, and their spirit is still called the anti-Christ spirit, which will be here until we enforce The Lord's Victory over it. :thumb:

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by godrulz

Perhaps one who plants many churches and oversees many congregations would function as an apostle, a mature ministry that gives oversight and birthing to many congregations. My former pastor is an apostle, Dr. Tim Sheets (his brother is Dutch Sheets).

http://www.timsheets.org/index.htm

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Aimiel

Obviously the original 12 (not Paul) were the ones who Jesus gave special authority, and Paul also became an apostle, as did others mentioned in scripture. One of them was a woman, named Junia.

Aimiel... read this again. You are really making an idiot of yourself.

Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners; they are men of note among the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by Sozo

Aimiel... read this again. You are really making an idiot of yourself.

Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners; they are men of note among the apostles, and they were in Christ before me. Why did your translator insert the word, "men," into the text, where it obviously doesn't belong? The name Junia is recognized to be a feminine name. Only an idiot would call someone names without doing any research at all. Obviously you don't know The Bible, and don't do any research. That's not very wise.

Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Aimiel

Why did your translator insert the word, "men," into the text, where it obviously doesn't belong? The name Junia is recognized to be a feminine name. Only an idiot would call someone names without doing any research at all. Obviously you don't know The Bible, and don't do any research. That's not very wise.

Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

Not my translator, you fool.

The translation is the RSV (revised standard version)

:darwinsm:

"kinsmen" Aimiel. :kookoo:

They are of note among the apostles. They are not apostles.

You are an idiot, and will do or say anything to justify your egomanical ambitions.

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by Sozo

Not my translator, you fool. You're in danger.The translation is the RSV (revised standard version)

"kinsmen" Aimiel. Yes, and if we say, "Here comes the mailman," it means person, since USPS Letter Carriers can be females. Relatives (kinsmen, by definition) are often also female, and are often found to be so (in historical documents) by the spelling of their name.The are of note among the apostles. They are not apostles. They aren't of note to, but of note among. Please take a remedial reading course. Is English your second language? What is your first language, monkey-speak?You are an idiot, and will do or say anything to justify your egomanical ambitions. Thank you.

[Sozo]

Perhaps more significant than either of these, however, is a Latin quotation from Origen (died 252 A.D.), in the earliest extant commentary on Romans: He says that Paul refers to "Andronicus and Junias and Herodian, all of whom he calls relatives and fellow captives (Andronicus, et Junias, et Herodion, quos omnes et cognatos suos, et concaptivos appellat)" (Origen's commentary on Romas, preserved in a Latin translation by Rufinus, c. 345-c.410 A.D., in J. P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, vol. 14, col. 1289). The name Junias here is a Latin masculine singular nominative, implying-if this ancient translation is reliable-that Origin (who was one of the ancient world's most proficient scholars) thought Junias was a man. Coupled with the quotation from Epiphanias, this quotation makes the weight of ancient evidence support this view.

Aimiel... YOU ARE A FOOL!!

YOU ARE A LIAR!!!

YOU ARE NOT A PROPHET!!!

YOU ARE A DELUDED SELF-PROMOTER!


The "apostles" hold them in high regard. They are not apostles!

You have the bible knowledge of a slug.

[Granite]

If Aimiel would explain what he thinks a prophet is, or what a prophet's gifts are, it might clarify a thing or two...

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by Sozo

Aimiel... YOU ARE A FOOL!The only prerequisite to your infantile tirade is to merely disagree with your closed-minded dim view of a single portion of scriptures, which doesn't ever closely trespass upon Truth.YOU ARE A LIAR!Excuse me? Where do you see me telling ONE SINGLE LIE? Also, please keep your voice down, the baby's sleeping.YOU ARE NOT A PROPHET!God and I both disagree with you, as do many of my friends.YOU ARE A DELUDED SELF-PROMOTER!No, I'm not, I'm Republican.The "apostles" hold them in high regard. They are not apostles!You're disagreeing with the obvious language implications, and with the majority of Biblical scholars.You have the bible knowledge of a slug. Coming from you, I consider this antoher compliment.
_________________________________
The following is from: http://www.godswordtowomen.org/junia-preato.htm

"Junia was a female apostle. This is the preferred view. The evidence is authoritative, compelling, diverse, and objective. Junia has been demonstrated to be a woman based on the testimony of early manuscripts, recorded statements of various church leaders through the 12th century, and research performed by many other scholars attesting to the name Junia or Julia existing in ancient times.

The evidence for a male reading was based on later manuscripts subject to the interpretations of scribes who thought Iounian was a male and to the statement by one early church leader who was also mistaken as to the correct gender of Prisca. Computer generated searches could find no example of a male Junias in ancient times nor is there any evidence proving that Junias was ever a contracted form of a longer name.

Junia and Andronicus were apostles. Numerous contemporary and past scholarship, lexical definitions, grammatical construction, and scriptural examples all provide the strongest support that episemoi en tois apostolois, naturally meant they were "outstanding among the apostles," just as Chrysostom so elegantly declared."

"Andronicus and Junias were outstanding among the apostles probably by virtue of their apostolic sufferings, the numbers of years they had been in Christ, their labor, and their humble service for Christ. May the eyes of all those in the Church be opened to see this important truth and its significant implication in allowing women to minister equally as they are called by God. To do otherwise is to deny the full redemptive work of Christ."
________________________________________________


I guess Sozo thinks women should be silent in church, or maybe stay home, shoeless, and produce babies.

[Jackielabby]

:)

[godrulz]

Romans 16:7

"Andronicus and Junias, greeted together, may have been husband and wife; Junias can be either masculine or feminine. Paul called them my relatives, which probably refers to a tribal, not a family kinship (cf. 9:3)....fellow prisoners...Paul commended them as outstanding (lit. having a mark on them, therefore illustrious, notable, outstanding) among the apostles. The word apostles is probably used here in the broader sense in which Barnabas, Silas, and others were called apostles (Acts 14:14; I Thess. 2:7). Or it could mean the apostles in the limited sense, referring to the reputation this pair had among the 12. They were in Christ before Paul (about 25 years)."

This commentator (Bible Knowledge Commentary) has the humility to recognize that this is not a salvific issue and there may be more than one POSSIBLE interpretation. He cannot be dogmatic based on the grammar and context alone.

Sozo is arrogant enough to think he alone has the answer and everyone else is idiot's to disagree.

Aimiel is humble enough to not claim prophetic insight into the passage. He is trying to study and search the Scriptures for the best interpretation.

Rulz is a carnal clown and desires to look into it more to prayerfully see where the historical, grammatical, contextual, literal, cultural, theological approach to Bible interpretation leads him. Consulting those who have done more research shows a disrespect for the Word and Spirit. One cannot use the sanctified intellect and teachers in the Body of Christ to get ideas. One should only use one's imagination even if it contradicts the historical data. Everyone else must be wrong if it questions sozo. It is spiritual to think every idea we have must be from the Spirit of truth. Jesus and Paul had to study the Scriptures without a cultural and language barrier. We do not have to do that because we are Christians.

"It is not certain whether the latter name should be Junias (masc.) or Junia (fem.)... The word kinsmen can mean either fellow countryman or blood relative...it is not clear from the text whether Andronicus and Junia were themselves apostles or simply highly regarded by the apostles..." (12 had special position, but word apostle not restricted to them). -Phillips

We cannot argue from silence.

In light of this, it is revealing how easy it is to be dogmatic when we cannot be so.

Sozo's labeling everyone a fool and idiot who disagrees with his misinformed dogmatism shows his lack of education and integrity. Relying on one translation (RSV was done by liberals, fool), is a bad idea.

Personally, I think God is showing us all something. In our desire to rightly divide the Word, we must come with humility, respect, and openness. We do not need to assassinate each other to make ourselves seem right and important.

Who is the idiot, fool, slug, liar here? I am sure he will never admit it, but it seems the kettle is calling others black.

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by granite1010

If Aimiel would explain what he thinks a prophet is, or what a prophet's gifts are, it might clarify a thing or two... A prophet is one of the five-fold ministry gift offices (the others are apostle, pastor, evangelist and teacher) which are given to The Body of Christ by The Lord. They are called by Him, and anointed for their particular office by Him. He knows how to move upon men's hearts and to lead them in the way that He wishes them to go. He said that His Sheep hear His Voice and that they would not follow a stranger.

I don't believe that a prophet has any gifts that aren't given to anyone else who becomes saved. Often The Lord will use him powerfully to deliver a word in season, or will anoint his ministry with great things, but the person doesn't profit from it, that I've ever seen. At least not prophets who are prophets of The Lord. There are those who pretend to be prophets, and are actually no more anointed than psychics or sorcerers, and will, except they repent, one day find themselves in hell.

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Aimiel



I guess Sozo thinks women should be silent in church, or maybe stay home, shoeless, and produce babies.

I'm in good company...

Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves

Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips, nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be dishonored.

Therefore, I want younger widows to get married, bear children, keep house, and give the enemy no occasion for reproach

[Jackielabby]

There are those who pretend to be prophets, and are actually no more anointed than psychics or sorcerers, and will, except they repent, one day find themselves in hell.

And this does not apply to you, then?

[godrulz]

Don't confuse sozo with the facts, his mind is already made up.

Is the evidence about the minor text plausible, probable, or at least possible?

How about apologizing to us for thinking we are the idiots when you have egg on your face again (I won't bring up the 'pas'/all episode again...you have a fragile ego).:ha:

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Aimiel

You're in danger.
Tell me again why you chose to make this: :Servent:, Servent101's smilie? Didn't you say it was because he's a fool?

[Jackielabby]

Lighthouse and Sozo, we agree on something. Praise the homo sapien.

[Lighthouse]

As far as the gender of Junias is concerned, I don't care. But I would like to know why Aimiel feels he is a prophet. What evidence do you have for yourself, Aimiel? I was told that I was a prophet by someone, once. Actually, a few times. And others have said the same. But I have never declared it of myself. And I refuse to do so. Do I sometimes kow things before I am told? Yes. But not unless I need to know, or am about to find out anyway. When my dad sat me down to tell me of his past, I knew what he was going to say. And I also have found that I can pray exactly what someone needs, without them telling me what they need. I believe it is a gift from God. But I never prophesy that anything is going to happen.

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by Sozo

Originally posted by Aimiel

I guess Sozo thinks women should be silent in church, or maybe stay home, shoeless, and produce babies. I'm in good company...I surmise, from your lack of retort, that you read the rest of my post, and agreed with my research, that Junia (or Julia) was an apostle. :ha:

[godrulz]

Originally posted by lighthouse

As far as the gender of Junias is concerned, I don't care. But I would like to know why Aimiel feels he is a prophet. What evidence do you have for yourself, Aimiel? I was told that I was a prophet by someone, once. Actually, a few times. And others have said the same. But I have never declared it of myself. And I refuse to do so. Do I sometimes kow things before I am told? Yes. But not unless I need to know, or am about to find out anyway. When my dad sat me down to tell me of his past, I knew what he was going to say. And I also have found that I can pray exactly what someone needs, without them telling me what they need. I believe it is a gift from God. But I never prophesy that anything is going to happen.

Not all prophecy is foretelling. Some of it is forthtelling and revealing of hearts.

You may have words of knowledge of do not recognize when you are used prophetically.

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by lighthouse

Tell me again why you chose to make this: :Servent:, Servent101's smilie? Didn't you say it was because he's a fool? I do think he is thouroughly deceived and very foolish, though I don't believe that I have ever said to him that he is a fool. :thumb:

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by Jackielabby

There are those who pretend to be prophets, and are actually no more anointed than psychics or sorcerers, and will, except they repent, one day find themselves in hell.

And this does not apply to you, then? Of course it would, were I to pretend. This is something that prophets (those who hear from God and say what they're inspired to say) keep forefront in their mind as they speak, because speaking on another's behalf is a serious charge, and especially so when That Other is The Almighty.

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Aimiel

I'm in good company...I surmise, from your lack of retort, that you read the rest of my post, and agreed with my research, that Junia (or Julia) was an apostle. :ha: [/QUOTE]

He may not have read it yet, or is flustered. He will be back with a blast. He can dish it out, but he cannot take it.

Since we are on the same team, it would be good to learn together, instead of one- up - manship = us vs them.

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Aimiel

I surmise, from your lack of retort, that you read the rest of my post, and agreed with my research, that Junia (or Julia) was an apostle. :ha:

Nope! You are wrong, and so are your Word of Faith perverts that you gather your demonic doctrines from.

The name in the greek is Iounias (Junias).

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Sozo

Nope! You are wrong, and so are your Word of Faith perverts that you gather your demonic doctrines from.

The name in the greek is Iounias (Junias).

v= n in Greek

The transliteration is Iounian. Greek interlinear 'Junias'. The other commentators implied there may be difference between older and newer MSS.

A.T. Robertson (Word Pictures in Gk. NT; + giant grammar) is a renowned (but dead) Greek scholar. He said Junias can be either a masculine or feminine name (cf. Kelly, Kelsey, Laverne,etc. in English). He also said the grammatical stucture could mean they were apostles like Barnabas or that they were famous with the apostles. He leaned to the first idea.

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by lighthouse

But I would like to know why Aimiel feels he is a prophet.I don't live by feelings. I live by faith. That faith is in The Word of God, Who is The One Who called me a prophet.What evidence do you have for yourself, Aimiel?What I have for myself is mine, and what I have to share with others is: nothing. I don't subject myself to those without faith to be judged or 'corrected.' I was told that I was a prophet by someone, once. Actually, a few times.Might have been incorrect, or it might have been something that was open to you at the time, but because of your lack of discernment (not receiving / discerning The Word of God), was lost. I've seen many prophecies which are conditional, and many people learn this lesson, never to repeat it. Discernment is the key.But I have never declared it of myself. And I refuse to do so.I wouldn't ever think of myself as a prophet, and especially would never proclaim it, except The Lord said it to me. He had to repeat it and teach me quite a bit before I ever confessed it to anyone else, but He never gives up.Do I sometimes kow things before I am told? Yes. You might call that pre-cognition.But not unless I need to know, or am about to find out anyway.I've avoided many auto accidents by foreknowledge (momentary) and believe that it is intervention by angels or by The Spirit of The Lord.When my dad sat me down to tell me of his past, I knew what he was going to say. Maybe deja vu?And I also have found that I can pray exactly what someone needs, without them telling me what they need.Your spirit is in perfect agreement with The Holy Spirit, and He is often able to cause His Children to pray the things that they need to pray.I believe it is a gift from God.The things you've described are good, and there are many other such things which happen, every day. None of what you've described is prophecy, nor is it the Ministry office of the prophet.But I never prophesy that anything is going to happen. You should. The Word of God says that each of us is to covet (earnestly desire) to prophecy. I believe that every single Christian ought to be able to prophecy. I also believe that healing, raising the dead and casting out demons is part of our instructions. :thumb:

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by Sozo

Nope! You are wrong... I believe that GodRulz was more correct than both of us in pointing out that the scriptures are given (at least partially) for us to contend over and to contend with. We are doing so, because God designed them to be something that constantly teaches those whose minds are open and who are able to learn new revelations of Truth. Those who are not are like the car stuck in the snow: 'established.'

[Jackielabby]

Would a real prophet tell other people he was a prophet.....I don't think so!

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Aimiel

We are doing so, because God designed them to be something that constantly teaches those whose minds are open and who are able to learn new revelations of Truth. Those who are not are like the car stuck in the snow: 'established.'

"For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established"


"As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith, just as you were instructed, and overflowing with gratitude."

"Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past"

"And after you have suffered for a little while, the God of all grace, who called you to His eternal glory in Christ, will Himself perfect, confirm, strengthen and establish you."

I prefer to be established in the truth, rather than tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine, and the big mouths of false prophets!

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Aimiel

I don't live by feelings. I live by faith. That faith is in The Word of God, Who is The One Who called me a prophet.
Not what I meant. You say you beleive you are a prophet because God told you that you are. Correct?

What I have for myself is mine, and what I have to share with others is: nothing. I don't subject myself to those without faith to be judged or 'corrected.'
First of all, you know that I am not without faith. If you don't want to give examples, publicly, as I have for myself, then PM me.

Might have been incorrect, or it might have been something that was open to you at the time, but because of your lack of discernment (not receiving / discerning The Word of God), was lost. I've seen many prophecies which are conditional, and many people learn this lesson, never to repeat it. Discernment is the key.
I never said that I doubted it. And I never said it was lost. I'm just very careful about exercising it. I know that I have to discern whether or not it's the right time.

I wouldn't ever think of myself as a prophet, and especially would never proclaim it, except The Lord said it to me. He had to repeat it and teach me quite a bit before I ever confessed it to anyone else, but He never gives up.
I know that feeling.

You might call that pre-cognition.
I wouldn't. It is a gift of God.

I've avoided many auto accidents by foreknowledge (momentary) and believe that it is intervention by angels or by The Spirit of The Lord.
You had foreknowledge that there was going to be an accident?

Maybe deja vu?
:think:Ummm, no. I had never been subject to anything that my dad had done. But I knew what he was going to say. Yet, the shock that went through me when I heard the actual words...

Your spirit is in perfect agreement with The Holy Spirit, and He is often able to cause His Children to pray the things that they need to pray.
Amen to that!

The things you've described are good, and there are many other such things which happen, every day. None of what you've described is prophecy, nor is it the Ministry office of the prophet.
Then what is?

You should. The Word of God says that each of us is to covet (earnestly desire) to prophecy. I believe that every single Christian ought to be able to prophecy. I also believe that healing, raising the dead and casting out demons is part of our instructions. :thumb:
If God ever gave me anything to prophecy then I would. He hasn't.

[godrulz]

The identity of Junias is not salvific truth. It just illustrates that some texts require research and are ambiguous. We can and should know the essential biblical truths. Minor text and MSS variances and alternate minor interpretations are to be expected. Even Peter said some of Paul's writings were difficult to understand. This is why Timothy STUDIED the Scriptures from a young age. No one person has every verse correctly translated or interpreted. This does not mean we are tossed around by false doctrine (or does it, godplayer?).

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by Jackielabby

Would a real prophet tell other people he was a prophet.....I don't think so! How else would he sell his, "I met a prophet and all I got was this lousy Tee-shirt," Tee-shirts?

[Jackielabby]

Originally posted by Aimiel

How else would he sell his, "I met a prophet and all I got was this lousy Tee-shirt," Tee-shirts?

I like that, Amiel. Good to see you lighten-up.:cool:

[anami]

All this prophet talk is great, it's all over the site.
Buches of people claiming to be prophets and a bunch of other people denouncing them, some based on the fact that they are prophets.

Jesus could walk into a cafe of christian bible students and they might give him a truth smack down for haveing different ideas from theirs.
Hope none of ya'll concider yourself prepared for rapture.

Besides it is a rediculous place to argue such a thing, the internet? If you met any of these people in person you would know them to be a false or true prophet, but you aren't in person and your just verbally abusing each other.
:doh:

[Sozo]

bump

[The Berean]

All this prophet talk is great, it's all over the site.
Buches of people claiming to be prophets and a bunch of other people denouncing them, some based on the fact that they are prophets.

Jesus could walk into a cafe of christian bible students and they might give him a truth smack down for haveing different ideas from theirs.
Hope none of ya'll concider yourself prepared for rapture.

Besides it is a rediculous place to argue such a thing, the internet? If you met any of these people in person you would know them to be a false or true prophet, but you aren't in person and your just verbally abusing each other.
:doh:
Ok, if you consider this thread a waste of time, why are you posting in this thread? :rolleyes:

[The Berean]

bump
I forgot about this thread. It was an interesting discussion for sure. :thumb:

[anami]

Ok, if you consider this thread a waste of time, why are you posting in this thread? :rolleyes:

i didn't concider this thread a waste of time.

Where did you get that idea?
From my statement regarding my dis on all of the pointless personal insults and pointless arguments (not all posts here, mind you, just the ones that are pointless or pointless personal insults.)

Besides i thought i was banned or something for being kind and friendly while i disagreed.

a

[Fensanity]

We have apostels today? I know the LDS believe they do, and I asked them if there apostels had seen Jesus - they where not to sure on this. I thought that was a requirement.

I am not saying we dont have apostles but I thott you had to see Jesus to be one.

[godrulz]

We have apostels today? I know the LDS believe they do, and I asked them if there apostels had seen Jesus - they where not to sure on this. I thought that was a requirement.

I am not saying we dont have apostles but I thott you had to see Jesus to be one.


There are different aspects of apostleship. The original apostolic ministry of the 12 did see Jesus. Subsequent apostleship for the local church is different (Eph. 4:11-13). If we do not have apostles, grammatically, then we do not have pastors, teachers, or evangelists today. It is arbitrary exegesis to say spiritual gifts or ministry gifts ceased in the first century. They were given for equipping, edifying, and evangelism and have not ceased.

LDS 'apostles' are false apostles since they have a different gospel and a counterfeit Christ.

[Sozo]

There are different aspects of apostleship. The original apostolic ministry of the 12 did see Jesus. Subsequent apostleship for the local church is different (Eph. 4:11-13). If we do not have apostles, grammatically, then we do not have pastors, teachers, or evangelists today. That's ridiculous. There are NO apostles today.

All the other ministries (pastors, teachers, evangelists) emanated from the apostles.

[godrulz]

That's ridiculous. There are NO apostles today.

All the other ministries (pastors, teachers, evangelists) emanated from the apostles.


The verse explicitly says that He gave the 5-fold ministry to the Church to equip and edify it. A Baptistic theology does not negate the simple reading of the text in context. There is no grammatical reason to accept 3/5 leadership gifts. The only justification is a preconceived theology (cf. throwing tongues and prophecy out while retaining other spiritual gifts in the list). If we still need to be prepared for works of service (we do), if we need to become mature and reach unity in the faith (we do), then why reject a plurality of eldership. There is no exegetical reason to accept pastors, but not apostles.

I am not talking about the unique purpose of the original 12, nor some charismaniacs who give themselves this title. In the biblical local church, one can find these gifts. An anti-charismatic bias in your church may negate two/five, but this does not mean that the Holy Spirit has withdrawn them.

[Fensanity]

Ok I am still confused, is this the same greek word for apostle used in Ephesians 4 as in other places when talking about the apostels? Could it have been talking about apostels for the building up Christ body, as in that it was refering to the 12 and Paul who had seen Jesus and not other people to come?

As far as us having Apostles today, would they have to see Jesus in His Reserected glory - like Paul did- to be called an apostle? What makes an apostle an apostle? Point me to some apostles we have today? Does anyone call themselves an apostle? If we really have Apostles who have seen Jesus I would love to talk to these poeple.

As far as the LDS apostles are concerned of course they are fake, but I would love nothing more to walk into the LDS church to talk to the missionaries and bring with me a real Apostle - if we still have them. They asked me where the other churches apostles where.

Anyways I would like to here from you again on this Godrulez and whoever else would like to answer.

[godrulz]

Ok I am still confused, is this the same greek word for apostle used in Ephesians 4 as in other places when talking about the apostels? Could it have been talking about apostels for the building up Christ body, as in that it was refering to the 12 and Paul who had seen Jesus and not other people to come?

As far as us having Apostles today, would they have to see Jesus in His Reserected glory - like Paul did- to be called an apostle? What makes an apostle an apostle? Point me to some apostles we have today? Does anyone call themselves an apostle? If we really have Apostles who have seen Jesus I would love to talk to these poeple.

As far as the LDS apostles are concerned of course they are fake, but I would love nothing more to walk into the LDS church to talk to the missionaries and bring with me a real Apostle - if we still have them. They asked me where the other churches apostles where.

Anyways I would like to here from you again on this Godrulez and whoever else would like to answer.


Many Baptists and others wrongly assume that apostles and prophets have passed away, yet they retain the other leadership gifts. Some simply rename things and say that modern apostles are really 'missionaries'. Likewise, they pick and chose from the spiritual gifts and seem to be biased against tongues and prophecy (cessation model). There is no exegetical basis for this. It is a preconceived theology supported by their lack of personal experience (contrary to the experience of hundreds of millions of charismatics or Pentecostals).

The Greek word is the same and basically means a 'sent one'. Most Greek words have a spectrum of nuances depending on the context. The 12 Apostles do not have to be identical to subsequent apostles throughout church history. In other words, apostles in Acts, the early church, or today do not have to have seen the risen Christ directly.

The 5-fold plurality of leadership gifts are valuable for maturing the church. Our modern model of one strong pastor leader and a board who sometimes hinders his vision might work in the corporate world, but was not the intention of God's blueprint. Contrary to our traditions, the evangelist gift is one who is resident in the local church and equips the saints to do the work of the ministry. If every member was an equipped evangelist, we would have more impact than one travelling evangelist. The converts would also be discipled in the context of the family of God, rather than falling away after the emotional appeal of a fly by night evangelist looking for $.

I wrote a paper on a biblical philosophy of ministry. Sorry I cannot develop the evidence in a few posts. I humble apostle does not need to call himself such. I am familiar with ministries that seem to have an apostolic function and are called or call themselves such. e.g. In India and Canada, I am aware of leaders who have planted dozens of churches and give oversight to them. They raise up and send out other church planters and the kingdom of God grows numerically and in spiritual maturity. They seem to have a gift and anointing that goes beyond being responsible for one local church. Regardless of the label, like Paul, they function as those who are sent out and send out others. They have not seen Jesus first hand, but they grow His Church in impactful ways.

We could take one of these 'apostles' to the Mormons. There concept is different. Anyone can claim to be an Apostle and sit high up in an organization's hierarchy. Mormon apostles have a revelatory and governing role and sit in headquarters. They are not actively planting churches and giving direct oversight to them and mentoring other church planters. This is similar to JW's Governing Body (policy makers, but not effective at raising up congregations to reach the lost).

Anyone can claim to be an Apostle. In some charismatic circles, some high profile charismatic leaders go by this title. This does not make them apostles nor are they necessarily doing what NT apostles did (sent out of local churches, planted churches, oversee churches, etc.). The local church is God's plan for the family and army of God. If He gives leadership and spiritual gifts for edifying and equipping the local church, why would we negate them and rely on modern church growth techniques that often come from the corporate business world?

The bottom line is to find out all that Scripture says about the Church and leadership. We should line up our beliefs and practices with the Word and not our humanistic models of church government (there is no one model of church government in Scripture...culture, local situation, etc. can affect the exact model, yet we should apply biblical principles).

[Mustard Seed]

We could take one of these 'apostles' to the Mormons. There concept is different. Anyone can claim to be an Apostle and sit high up in an organization's hierarchy. Mormon apostles have a revelatory and governing role and sit in headquarters. They are not actively planting churches and giving direct oversight to them and mentoring other church planters. This is similar to JW's Governing Body (policy makers, but not effective at raising up congregations to reach the lost).



You seem ignorant to what LDS Apostles do and do not do. They are actively planting churches and giving direct oversight. Whether it's actualy serving time in foreign posts or communicating on a daily basis with congregations all over the world they take a very active role in governance, oversight, establishing and ministering to the thousands of congregations all over the world. Our prophet currently is probably one of the most well traveled men in the history of the world.

[Aimiel]

That's ridiculous. There are NO apostles today.

All the other ministries (pastors, teachers, evangelists) emanated from the apostles.God 'gave' the five-fold ministry to His Body, and He doesn't take gifts back. The attitude that produced that thought, one of cessation, has caused The Word of The Lord to be 'precious' in this day. Those who recognize that God is True to His Word know this, and treat His Word as precious.

And the word of the LORD was precious in those days; there was no open vision.

[godrulz]

You seem ignorant to what LDS Apostles do and do not do. They are actively planting churches and giving direct oversight. Whether it's actualy serving time in foreign posts or communicating on a daily basis with congregations all over the world they take a very active role in governance, oversight, establishing and ministering to the thousands of congregations all over the world. Our prophet currently is probably one of the most well traveled men in the history of the world.


The Mormon church is well organized and very rich. This does not make it true.

I am not very familiar with church organization. Your doctrinal beliefs are a more important issue.

[Aimiel]

I had an Apostle for a Pastor for over four years, at Oasis. He is Apostle to his brother and his dad, who are also Pastors; as well as four other churches. His brother is a famous Christian author and speaker: Dutch Sheets, who lives in Colorado.

http://www.timsheets.org/
http://www.oasis-middletown.org/
http://www.dutchsheets.org/index.cfm

[Sozo]

I had an Apostle for a Pastor for over four years, at Oasis. He is Apostle to his brother and his dad, who are also Pastors; as well as four other churches. His brother is a famous Christian author and speaker: Dutch Sheets, who lives in Colorado.

http://www.timsheets.org/
http://www.oasis-middletown.org/
http://www.dutchsheets.org/index.cfm


Well, at least I have no reason to have to comment on this.

:chuckle:

[Fensanity]

You seem ignorant to what LDS Apostles do and do not do. They are actively planting churches and giving direct oversight. Whether it's actualy serving time in foreign posts or communicating on a daily basis with congregations all over the world they take a very active role in governance, oversight, establishing and ministering to the thousands of congregations all over the world. Our prophet currently is probably one of the most well traveled men in the history of the world.

Whats the LDS standard to be called an Apostle?

[Mustard Seed]

Whats the LDS standard to be called an Apostle?


They must be called of God by those with the keys and authority. Joseph Smith received the keys and authority of God to ordain men to such and then called those men. Joseph was the Presiding Authority as the head of the Quorum of the Presidency of the Church. Upon the death of the President the President's Quorum is disolved and the keys and authority of the church rest with the Quorum of the Twelve (granted the actual number of the Quorum becomes 14 as the councilors take their place upon the disolution of the Presidential Quorum. The revelation concerning the next President of the Church is rightfully received by the Quorum of the Twelve who then eventuly form again a Presiding Quorum of three. The President and his two councilors. For more information touching these bodies of government here are some links

http://scriptures.lds.org/gsa/apostle

http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=apostle&search.x=15&search.y=7&search=Search

[Fensanity]

but they don't have to see Christ or anything like that to be called an apostel or have a vision and see Christ? This one mormon told me the apostels had a vision of Christ, after I possibly gave him some bad info on what it takes to be called an apostel.


BTW: I'll respond to the other thread soon, I have been trying to track down some sources.

[Mustard Seed]

but they don't have to see Christ or anything like that to be called an apostel or have a vision and see Christ? This one mormon told me the apostels had a vision of Christ, after I possibly gave him some bad info on what it takes to be called an apostel.


BTW: I'll respond to the other thread soon, I have been trying to track down some sources.

They are special witnesses of Christ but the notion that they must physicaly view him is an erroneous one. I've heard some promulgate such a false doctrine. They must certainly have a strong witness of Christ but they do not have to have Christ appear to them.

I'm curious what was the "possibly...bad info" you gave?

[godrulz]

They must be called of God by those with the keys and authority. Joseph Smith received the keys and authority of God to ordain men to such and then called those men. Joseph was the Presiding Authority as the head of the Quorum of the Presidency of the Church. Upon the death of the President the President's Quorum is disolved and the keys and authority of the church rest with the Quorum of the Twelve (granted the actual number of the Quorum becomes 14 as the councilors take their place upon the disolution of the Presidential Quorum. The revelation concerning the next President of the Church is rightfully received by the Quorum of the Twelve who then eventuly form again a Presiding Quorum of three. The President and his two councilors. For more information touching these bodies of government here are some links

http://scriptures.lds.org/gsa/apostle

http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=apostle&search.x=15&search.y=7&search=Search


This is parallel to Roman Catholic's Apostolic Succession. Both views are not biblical. Authority is resident in Christ, not men.

[Mustard Seed]

This is parallel to Roman Catholic's Apostolic Succession. Both views are not biblical. Authority is resident in Christ, not men.


It is not parallel to Roman Catholic Apostolic Succession. It is far from it. For a demonstration of such I refer you to a book Apostles And Bishops In Early Christianity (Nibley, Hugh, Works. V. 15.).

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1590383893/104-7870014-6810329?v=glance&n=283155

The Early Christian Church, once left without apostles for it's over all governance, took the apostolic title and tried to give it to it's remaining clergy. Bishops and priests were what was left. Since no one could quite figure out how they should cordinate without the Apostles available they went through all manner of perplexities and theories about how the Church should be run. I wish I could mail you my copy if I had the funds to replace it (I'm not quite finished reading it) then I could point out the specifics and have you try and explain to me, in light of that, why your view is still the most valid and/or plausible one.

[Mustard Seed]

Authority is resident in Christ, not men.

Are you saying he didn't delegate authority to the apostles? Why did he send them out if his plan was to simply let them die off and leave the church with no guidance for the rest of time 'till his second coming? Christ still runs the church when he delegates authority to men. To say that if Christ says that some of his earthly mouth pieces have a portion of his authority how can you deny Christ that capability?

[godrulz]

Are you saying he didn't delegate authority to the apostles? Why did he send them out if his plan was to simply let them die off and leave the church with no guidance for the rest of time 'till his second coming? Christ still runs the church when he delegates authority to men. To say that if Christ says that some of his earthly mouth pieces have a portion of his authority how can you deny Christ that capability?

All believers have a royal priesthood. The Great Commission includes Christ's delegated authority for us to go in His name/authority. While there are leadership gifts in the church with authority and responsibility, they are servant leaders, not a hierarchy above the common believer.

[Mustard Seed]

All believers have a royal priesthood. The Great Commission includes Christ's delegated authority for us to go in His name/authority. While there are leadership gifts in the church with authority and responsibility, they are servant leaders, not a hierarchy above the common believer.


What is authority without a hierarchy? What is a body with no specified parts with no specialized specified roles? Is God the author of chaos and disorder?

If all believers have the royal priesthood and anyone can chose to be a believer then you contradict Christ. He said--

16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

Where does Christ indicate that he changed this order? Where does he indicate that anyone can be the head, or the foot, or whatever they want? Moses didn't get to chose to not be the Lord's mouth piece. Why and when did this change to what you claim it is? Because I do not see it, or any incling of it, in the Bible.

[Fensanity]

They must certainly have a strong witness of Christ but they do not have to have Christ appear to them.

Well the missionary said that they had a vision, and saw Christ in the vision. He said it plainly and straight forwardly after I made my comment.
I said to be called an Apostel [in the Bible] you had to see Christ.

It did sound like he was just saying this and not knowing for fact. As if he was reasoning they must have seen a vision if this is the case. Though he didn't really say it like that. We all make mistakes though.

[Mustard Seed]

Well the missionary said that they had a vision, and saw Christ in the vision. He said it plainly and straight forwardly after I made my comment.
I said to be called an Apostel [in the Bible] you had to see Christ.

It did sound like he was just saying this and not knowing for fact. As if he was reasoning they must have seen a vision if this is the case. Though he didn't really say it like that. We all make mistakes though.

I simply know of at least one apostle/prophet (can't recall the name at the moment) that mentioned that he, at the point he'd arrived at, had not seen Christ in vision. I also am not aware of any requisit to see Christ in order to be a special witness of him. Surely not all that saw him became apostles. But yes we all make mistakes, me especialy.

[godrulz]

MS: I assume Mormons have forums like this on the internet. Do fellow Mormons disagree on things as we do here (there is a variety of significant views represented within traditional Christian circles here), or do they tend to tow the party line or seek out the LDS position as best as possible? I know some LDS scholars have been censured when their views diverge too far from the norm.

[Fensanity]

Surely not all that saw him became apostles.
of course

The idea wasn't that all who saw him did, but that it was a requirement.

[Mustard Seed]

MS: I assume Mormons have forums like this on the internet. Do fellow Mormons disagree on things as we do here (there is a variety of significant views represented within traditional Christian circles here), or do they tend to tow the party line or seek out the LDS position as best as possible? I know some LDS scholars have been censured when their views diverge too far from the norm.


Of course there's varying opion on various areas. It's equaly obvious that any significant theological movement will have intellectual disedents, even to the extent of heretical and apostate stances. A key difference, however, is that we agree on what is vital and what is not negociable to such a degree to hold together an actual body. We are not some ambiguous formation. There is order in the Body of Christ. A head and feet and all other portions, not some all the same, structureless conglomeration of independent beings that all have the same authority and no order beyond that present amongst a body of related pathogens.

[Mustard Seed]

of course

The idea wasn't that all who saw him did, but that it was a requirement.

Do you believe such is a requirement? That one must physicaly view Christ?

[godrulz]

Christianity has diversity within unity. Autocratic organizations like the Watchtower and the LDS church have uniformity. The divisions in Christianity are not usually over salvific, essential truths, but relate to cultural, style, or governmental issues (i.e. those that are true believers vs nominal, liberal churches).

[Fensanity]

Do you believe such is a requirement? That one must physicaly view Christ?

I don't know. but if it is. Than neither Christians nor LDSs have apostels (as far as I know).

If it is not a requirement than Christians do have Apostels.

[Mustard Seed]

I don't know. but if it is. Than neither Christians nor LDSs have apostels (as far as I know).

If it is not a requirement than Christians do have Apostels.


Living ones? Who?

[Mustard Seed]

Christianity has diversity within unity. Autocratic organizations like the Watchtower and the LDS church have uniformity. The divisions in Christianity are not usually over salvific, essential truths, but relate to cultural, style, or governmental issues (i.e. those that are true believers vs nominal, liberal churches).

You can't even agree on what is or isn't salvific, essential truths.

[godrulz]

You can't even agree on what is or isn't salvific, essential truths.


Example? All true Christians affirm the Deity of Christ, His resurrection, and grace/repentant faith to appropriate His finished work of redemption. We all reject works as necessary to earn salvation.

We differ about eschatology, modes of baptism, styles of worship, church government, spiritual gifts, etc.

There are some minor sects that have issues. Give an example of a significant doctrine and denomination and how it differs from most believers. Catholics are an exception since they are not Protestant, yet they affirm the Trinity, Deity of Christ, resurrection of Christ, virgin conception, etc.

[godrulz]

I don't know. but if it is. Than neither Christians nor LDSs have apostels (as far as I know).

If it is not a requirement than Christians do have Apostels.

There is a difference between the original apostles who saw Christ and the leadership gift for the Church Age in Ephesians 4 (cf. OT prophets who contributed to Scripture are not identical to the prophetic office in the local church in Acts and Eph. 4).

[Mustard Seed]

Example? All true Christians affirm the Deity of Christ, His resurrection, and grace/repentant faith to appropriate His finished work of redemption. We all reject works as necessary to earn salvation.


We differ about eschatology, modes of baptism, styles of worship, church government, spiritual gifts, etc.

There's even a conflict above. Baptism for example. You say that all reject works as necessary for salvation yet in the same breath you admit that you don't agree on what constitutes baptism. Since baptism, depending on the mode of it, can be a work. You are inherently banning from Christianity all through the ages who felt they had to receive a physical baptism for salvation.


There are some minor sects that have issues. Give an example of a significant doctrine and denomination and how it differs from most believers. Catholics are an exception since they are not Protestant, yet they affirm the Trinity, Deity of Christ, resurrection of Christ, virgin conception, etc.

Catholics are one (though certainly not the only) who throw a kink in your proposed essential, salvific, items with regard to the mentioned conflict between modes of baptism and works. Are they Christian? If so why the exception?

[godrulz]

There's even a conflict above. Baptism for example. You say that all reject works as necessary for salvation yet in the same breath you admit that you don't agree on what constitutes baptism. Since baptism, depending on the mode of it, can be a work. You are inherently banning from Christianity all through the ages who felt they had to receive a physical baptism for salvation.




Catholics are one (though certainly not the only) who throw a kink in your proposed essential, salvific, items with regard to the mentioned conflict between modes of baptism and works. Are they Christian? If so why the exception?

Some Catholics trust the Church, ritual, baptism, good works, etc. for salvation. They are not saved. The Catholics who trust Jesus for salvation, whether they were infant baptized or not, can be saved through faith. Not all Catholics are good Catholics or practice what they are taught.

If someone trusts Christ alone for salvation (His finished work) and affirms His Deity and resurrection, they can be saved since*a wrong view of baptism would not negate their saving faith. There are legalistic groups in Christianity that go beyond the criteria God sets out. This does not necessarily mean that they do not have sufficient understanding, simple faith, or salvation. The trappings they add are not acceptable, but they do not negate the love and grace of God.

Trusting a counterfeit Christ or gospel is another matter. If someone trusts the Jesus of the Watchtower (Michael the Archangel), they are not saved because a counterfeit Christ cannot save them.

The majority of Christian groups do not see baptism as a salvific issue. The ones who do, usually have a root of saving faith but misunderstand the nature of baptism. God honors faith, not theological perfection.

The LDS view on God and Jesus puts them outside of Christianity. Being baptized as a Mormon is irrelevant if one has a false god.

[Mustard Seed]

So a Catholic who really, at their core, deny Catholicism, are the only ones who are saved.

These legalistic groups have a convenient grey area. I always thought God promised to spew out the lukewarm. How do you view that statement of Christ? What is lukewarm?

I also still find it amusing that for one being against organization you seem to have this very clearly in your head as to who is and isn't saved.

Again you cannot even decide on what is and isn't salvific, one reason being, you cannot definatively define who is in and who is not in what you view to be Christianity.

What about Stephen? Was he outside of Christianity for reporting to have seen God in the same way that Joseph Smith did?

[godrulz]

So a Catholic who really, at their core, deny Catholicism, are the only ones who are saved.

These legalistic groups have a convenient grey area. I always thought God promised to spew out the lukewarm. How do you view that statement of Christ? What is lukewarm?

I also still find it amusing that for one being against organization you seem to have this very clearly in your head as to who is and isn't saved.

Again you cannot even decide on what is and isn't salvific, one reason being, you cannot definatively define who is in and who is not in what you view to be Christianity.

What about Stephen? Was he outside of Christianity for reporting to have seen God in the same way that Joseph Smith did?


God alone knows the heart and who is saved. I am not against God's organization or church. I am against religious organizations that deceive people.

A Catholic could love Jesus (they affirm the Deity/resurrection of Christ and the Trinity) and have some areas of wrong teaching. We are saved by faith in Christ, not perfect knowledge. Many Catholics are nominal and merely religious. This is another story.

Many legalistic groups are zealous and passionate for God. They just go too far and add external things that God does not. The Bible warns about license and legalism. It does not say legalists are automatically unsaved. They need to grow in grace and love and differentiate God's law of love from man's trappings.

Stephen saw the Lord Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith made up a story or saw an angel of light (demon) since He teaches the plurality of gods, another false Christ, another gospel, etc. A legitimate vision of God is not in the same category as a vision that is from the dark side.

Let's start here: monotheism, Deity of Christ, resurrection of Christ, faith in Christ alone apart from works for salvation are essential truths that evangelical Christians hold in common. Nominal denominations preach a social gospel of works and some liberal ones deny these biblical foundations. Some started off as biblical groups and have become nominal as they compromised over the years. There may be genuine believers and renewal movements within these denominations, but a return to a Bible and Christ-centered gospel is the only way to bring life to them again.

Baptism is not a salvific issue. Baptismal regeneration is a heresy. JWs and Mormons make too big an issue of denominational differences. A Billy Graham crusade unites the vast majority of churches. When I pastored in a small town, our ministerial had tremendous unity in reaching the community for Christ, despite our peripheral doctrinal differences. Just because I believe in speaking in tongues was not a reason to be divided from those who teach the gifts have ceased. We have tremendous unity, including essential doctrinal unity. You are used to uniformity and a centralized, autocratic organization (cf. JW) that does not tolerate any significant deviation. Mind control, reading the same literature at the same time, etc. is not the same as the supernatural love and unity between true believers.

[Fensanity]

What about Stephen? Was he outside of Christianity for reporting to have seen God in the same way that Joseph Smith did?

How did Stephen Describe God the Father?

[Mustard Seed]

How did Stephen Describe God the Father?


As having a right hand, and having the Son on his right hand.

This brings up a curious matter. Do you, Fensanity, believe that God the Father has "parts" that is anything that make up his substance?

[godrulz]

As having a right hand, and having the Son on his right hand.

This brings up a curious matter. Do you, Fensanity, believe that God the Father has "parts" that is anything that make up his substance?

The Father is not a man with body parts. He is the invisible God. "Right hand of God" is an expression referring to His power and authority. He saw the Son of Man, but it is not explicit what He saw as a manifestation of the Father (see John 1 that shows God's essential glory is not seen, but is manifest in the incarnation of the Word, God made visible). If the Father has a form, it is a theophany, not His essential, uncreated nature before creation. The LDS idea of the Father as a man is grievous (We won't get into Brigham's Adam-God nonsense).

Jn. 4:24 God is spirit, not a spirit in a body. Jesus is the God-Man. He alone has the nature of Deity and flesh.

[Mustard Seed]

The Father is not a man with body parts. He is the invisible God. "Right hand of God" is an expression referring to His power and authority. He saw the Son of Man, but it is not explicit what He saw as a manifestation of the Father (see John 1 that shows God's essential glory is not seen, but is manifest in the incarnation of the Word, God made visible). If the Father has a form, it is a theophany, not His essential, uncreated nature before creation. The LDS idea of the Father as a man is grievous (We won't get into Brigham's Adam-God nonsense).

Jn. 4:24 God is spirit, not a spirit in a body. Jesus is the God-Man. He alone has the nature of Deity and flesh.


God is love. I am spirit. Who are you to decide what the scriptures mean. Where's your authority? Ohh... wait. Your not with the Body paradigm of the church, rather the ambiguous mass of a single pathogene, every piece having the same authority of the other. How do you know what Stephen saw or didn't see? convenient that he was dead right after saying that so there's NO way that we could know what he really meant unless God, through personal revelation, revealed it to someone. Has God revealed such to you godrulz? Has God told you what Stephen meant?

[Fensanity]

Will you stand by me in times of trouble MS?

[Mustard Seed]

Will you stand by me in times of trouble MS?


As much as I'm permited to. Certainly.

[Fensanity]

but your not literally going to be by my side?

[Mustard Seed]

but your not literally going to be by my side?

Where's this going?

[Fensanity]

You don't get it?

I said will you stand by me, and I did not litterally/ physically mean for you to stand by me. But the saying stand by me is used as an expression.

[Mustard Seed]

You don't get it?

I said will you stand by me, and I did not litterally/ physically mean for you to stand by me. But the saying stand by me is used as an expression.


Sooo? What are you getting at?

[Fensanity]

Thus you get this
As having a right hand, and having the Son on his right hand.

VS

The Father is not a man with body parts. He is the invisible God. "Right hand of God" is an expression referring to His power and authority.

I didn't mean to mislead you into concern with the question. But was trying to give you a more modern example of a phrase that is similar and not literal/ physical.

[Mustard Seed]

Now you must demonstrate the translation of that phrase as having it's allegorical essense in the context of that day by demonstrating several instances outside that one that are clearly allegorical. I rather tend to believe the entire reverence given the modern day term was derived from God's reference to those on his right hand. And if he was the source of the allegorical sense then there was no precedence for the phrase ever being clearly allegorical and explicitly void of any chance at literal interpretation.

In other words if God were really so concerned with us believing that he had not a body as ours then he's made some pretty foolish mistakes with the likes of Moses (face to face as a man speaketh with his friend) and Stephen and with the relation of the fourth figure of a man with body parts in the furnace. If God was aware of how these phrases would be taken why no disclaimer. And don't try to claim some implicit disclaimer hidden throughout the code of the Bible. Enoch "walked with God". All your defenses for a formless God are easily dealt with. Yet you cannot just wisk away all references to an God having a body. You try and allegorize all of it and you will find yourself essentialy with all those who allegorize away the creation and all seemingly supernatural instances in the Bible other than the ones convenient to their paradigm. And if all God says are things not meant to be taken litteraly then how can one be sure of anything in the Bible?

[Fensanity]

Are you saying someone has seen the form of God?

[godrulz]

Jn.1 teaches that no one has seen the invisible God's essential glory. Jesus made the invisible God visible. The Father could take on a form so the right hand of God could be more literal. The Mormon mistake is to take figurative language (God does not have wings either) and make it literal to conclude that God is a man of flesh and bones (Jn. 4:24 God is spirit, not flesh). A humanized God (except the Lord Jesus Christ) is not the awesome, infinite God of biblical Christianity.

[Mustard Seed]

Are you saying someone has seen the form of God?

Yes. The verses godrulz refererences concerning man's inability to see God are incomplete. No human has seen God in his natural eyes and lived. The Holy Spirit must come upon and actualy momentary change an individual that they may be able to be in the presence of God without it utterly destroying them as they presently exist, or existed, in mortal bodies. No human unaided by the Spirit has seen or could see God in his glory and live. Even then it's not the fullness of his glory they are exposed to, for it is infinite.

[godrulz]

One cannot see an infinite, invisible spirit. For us to see Him, He takes on a form that still veils His entire glory. A theophany should not be confused with the invisible, infinite spirit of God. The big issue is that the Word took on flesh, but the Father and Spirit did not incarnate. Mormons are wrong to think that the Father has flesh and bones. We should not humanize God, except in the incarnation of the Son.

[Mustard Seed]

One cannot see an infinite, invisible spirit. For us to see Him, He takes on a form that still veils His entire glory. A theophany should not be confused with the invisible, infinite spirit of God. The big issue is that the Word took on flesh, but the Father and Spirit did not incarnate. Mormons are wrong to think that the Father has flesh and bones. We should not humanize God, except in the incarnation of the Son.


Because rulz can't believe Christ when he says "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

[Fensanity]

Because rulz can't believe Christ when he says "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.


John 5, lets break it down:

John Chapter 5

The set up:
There was a sick man at the pool, He asked him if he really wanted to get well. The man said he tries to get in the pool but can't. Jesus healed him, told the man to pick up his bed and walk. It was the Sabbath.

The Jews saw this man and kept telling him, that is was not lawful to pick up his bed on the sabbath. He told them that the very man that had healed him told him to. They asked the man, who was it? and the man didn't know untill Jesus came up to him a little while later and said, "Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee." So than the man went away and told the Jews that Jesus is the guy who healed him.

So than the Jews started to persecute Jesus, because he was doing those things on the sabbath. He tells them in verse 17, that His Father has never stopped working (He works on the sabbath) and that He like his father must be at devine work to.

Now this really pissed of the Jews, it made them want to kill Jesus even more. Not only did Jesus break the sabbath, he was putting Himself on a level with God.

Now to the meat and potatoes of the problem:

" 19Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

20For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

21For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. "

And so does this mean that Jesus in perhapse the form of an intelligence saw His Father die and be raised from the dead by another God? absolutley not! Jesus does nothing apart from the will of The Father, thats all this mean. Jesus is in the Father and the Father is in Jesus. Jesus gives an example if what he means is confusing in verse 21. Lets see what the rest of the chapter says about this.

22For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

So the Son Judges everyone. He isn't doing this on His own, after learning and watching the Father. He is doing this because He is one with the Father. Lets keep on reading...

23That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

24Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

25Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

26For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

27And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

Remember Jesus is the High Priest, the intercesor and mediator. Why is this good news for us? Hebrews 4:15

"15For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."

Why is this of so importance if God the Father had been a man Himself? Lets continue reading

28Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

29And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

30I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

How does Jesus judge? Because he has seen His Father do it and is imitating Him? No! But because he does nothing of His own self. The Father is in Jesus and Jesus in the Father.

31If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.

32There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.

33Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth.

34But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved.

35He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light.

36But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.

37And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

Now I don't know what shape Jesus was refering to, but I think one can infer that it wasn't one of a man.

38And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.

39Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

40And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

41I receive not honour from men.

42But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.

43I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

44How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?

45Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.

46For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.

47But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

The Conclusion:

How one gets out of John 5, that Jesus is going to die and be raised an exalted man (Godhood) just like His Father did before him, is beyond me. Jesus was and always has been God, He is the First and the Last! For a time Jesus was made lower than the angels, but he is not anymore. Jesus is who He is. The Jesus that it today is the same, he hasn't developed by watching and repeating what His Father did.

Also Joseph Smith has not seen the shape of God. If some one disagrees with this, I ask what is the "shape" of God?

[Mustard Seed]

Fensanity,

This is insanity. You are trying to portend knowledge on the subject you do not have. You are forcing it to fit your view and taking anything you can formulate in your own mind to make my faith appear as weird or screwy as you can. You do not care that they are based on your screwy assumptions on a subject you erroneously flatter yourself to think you understand in the foggiest. You cannot support your own theological bases and refuse (unless I 'start a thread' for the purpose of such) to attempt. It is beyond obvious that you are not here for discovering the truth. If you were you would take the council given in the last chapter of Moroni. Untill you can come to me and say that you've carefully read the Book of Mormon and honestly and truthfully taken the challenge offered at the end of that Book I have nothing of any import to tell you.

There is ONE God. All who have been and will be faithfull in the testimony of Christ receive the promises he made to them, in their fullness. Christ did only what he saw his Father do.

[godrulz]

Because rulz can't believe Christ when he says "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.


I agree with this statement. It affirms that Jesus chose to depend on the Father as a man while on earth. It says nothing of His preexistence. Jesus can see the Father. He can also see what the Father is doing on earth through the Spirit. Jesus was in relationship and fellowship with the Father. He was not seeing the Father walk around in flesh on the earth and copying Him.

[godrulz]

Fensanity,

This is insanity. You are trying to portend knowledge on the subject you do not have. You are forcing it to fit your view and taking anything you can formulate in your own mind to make my faith appear as weird or screwy as you can. You do not care that they are based on your screwy assumptions on a subject you erroneously flatter yourself to think you understand in the foggiest. You cannot support your own theological bases and refuse (unless I 'start a thread' for the purpose of such) to attempt. It is beyond obvious that you are not here for discovering the truth. If you were you would take the council given in the last chapter of Moroni. Untill you can come to me and say that you've carefully read the Book of Mormon and honestly and truthfully taken the challenge offered at the end of