Re: [TruthTalk] Prayer Request

[Dave]

DAVEH:  Sorry to take so long responding to your previous post of last month, Perry.  I'm slowly trying to catch up on my email traffic! Charles Perry Locke wrote: DAVEH:  Do you think the foreknowledge of God figures into the passage Slade originally quoted....... As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. His students asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Yeshua answered, "Neither did this man sin, nor his parents; but, that the works of God might be revealed in him. (John 9:1-3) ......?  To me, this seems like indirect evidence there was some cognition of a pre-mortal existence. I see absolutely no suggestion of pre-mortal existence in the above verse. I have read it many times, and have never in any way connected it with pre-mortal existence. DAVEH:  Hmmmmmm.......seems pretty obvious to me, Perry.  If the guy was born blind, and they questioned the reason for his blindness.....either the result of his parents' sins, or the blind man's own sins......when do you think that blind man could have sinned to cause him to be born that way???  Would you not conclude that they thought the blind guy could have sinned prior to his birth? Perhaps you admitted LDS bias is causing you to see evidence that does not exist in this verse. Did you interpret this verse this way yourself, or is it related to your LDS training? DAVEH:  Pure logic, Perry.  I've explained why I think the passage shows that they believed the man had a pre-mortal existence due to him sinning prior to his birth.  How do you see it differently? DAVEH:  I assume you believe your Protestant God was once a man too, do you not? No, He was not. The aspect of the Trinity referred to as "the Son" became a man, was crucified, and was raised from the dead, but then I am talking about the real God, DAVEH:  OK Perry........So you believe the Son became a man.  And, you believe the Son was (and is) God.....is that correct?  Then logically, does that not man that your Protestant God was once a man too?   Where am I misunderstanding you on this? not the ficitious LDS god or LDS jesus. DAVEH: I'm not trying to quote LDS Scripture here to support my beliefs.....as you know, that is not my purpose.  I just wonder why you don't understand the pre-mortal spirit implication Jn 9:1-3 as I do. And, likewise, I wonder why you do. DAVEH:   Was my above explanation adequate to help you understand the logic behind this? I see it as another verse you are using as a prooftext DAVEH:  Why would you accuse me of prooftexting when I am simply offering a passage as evidence supporting my belief? to attempt to support an LDS false belief, like the baptism of the dead verse, or the verse about "ye are gods", and myriad other contortions of scruipture taken out of context and bent to support JS's false prophecies and babbling. DAVEH:  There are many passages in the Bible that support my beliefs which are contrary to those of many Protestants.  That's why I enjoy TT, Perry.....it gives me a chance to ask guys like you why they cannot see the obvious implications of some of the passages that infer that early Christians thought baptism was necessary for salvation (and hence baptized those who passed on previously without being baptized), or why the Lord would use a passage to confound those trying to entrap him IF that passage did not directly correspond to the fact that he (Jesus) is God.   Why you think I've taken those passages out of context.....I'm not sure, Perry.  If you or any other TTers would like to show me how any of these three (including the presumed sins before birth of the blind guy) instances are taken out of context, please explain. DAVEH:  I don't understand why you think discussing your understanding of the nature of God is a waste of time, even if it does parallel my (LDS biased) belief. Please don't give this more than is due...the parallel is sketchy at best, bound only in the words used, not in their meaning, and not in any similarity of characters. DAVEH:  I consider the nature of God to be an important topic.  If you wish not to discuss it simply because my understanding is so vastly inferior to yours.....that is your choice. If a Protestant wanted to discuss the nature of God, I would think you would not find that a waste of time.  Is it just because I'm a Mormon that you don't want to condescend to my level to discuss God? I do not find discussing the nature of God a waste of time at all. I find comparing God or Jesus to a fictitious god and a fictitious jesus a waste of time. DAVEH:   I don't think the nature of God as described in the Bible is a waste of time either, Perry.  But when doctrines of men (viz, the Trinity Doctrine) get introduced into mainstream theology, then the discussion really does become a waste of time.    Let me lay out what I was trying to explain.  I believe Jesus existed as a spirit being in the OT.  His spirit body then became clothed in a body of flesh and blood for a brief span some 2000 years ago.  At his death, the spirit and physical body departed, only to be reunited a short time later in a resurrected form of flesh and bones.  I believe he continues to be a spirit being that is clothed with physical body of flesh and bones to this day.  Now Perry, that is pretty much doctrinal LDS theology, to which I subscribe.  From my discussions with other TTers in the past, I thought this is pretty much doctrinal thinking that is shared by many Protestants, and even independent thinkers such as yourself. Above you have described some of the characteristics of the real Jesus, but have assigned them to the LDS false jesus. Hijacking some of the real Jesus' characteristics does not make the LDS jesus any more real. DAVEH:  Wow......Is that really your response, Perry?  May I assume you agree then with my believe as I explained it above, despite your negative implication?  I'm not asking you to believe in any Jesus other than what is found in the Bible, Perry.  I'm not trying to hijack your belief at all......I've just stated what I think may be commonly believed by you as well.   DAVEH:  I realize there are many things I believe with which you disagree.   I'm not trying to tell you that I am right, and you are wrong.  I'm just trying to figure out why you disagree. For some reason or other, Dave, no matter how much I try to describe it to you, you just don't get it. DAVEH:  As I see it Perry, I'm trying to discuss what's found in the Bible, and you seem to be intent on discussing what you think is wrong with LDS theology. I believe this is because of your twisted use of scripture, and your belief in a different jesus, different god, and a different gospel than that taught in the BIble. Hey, if one starts out with the wrong premises, one always ends up with the wrong conclusions. DAVEH:  You've perfectly described the T-Doctrine, IMHO.  As I read the Bible's description of oneness of God, Jesus and man, it doesn't jive with the T-D's discussion of oneness to the exclusion of man.  I'd sure appreciate you commenting on this discrepancy. Some things (such as my belief that Jesus' Heavenly Father has a physical body of flesh and bone) is very easy for me to understand why you don't accept it.  So, there is really not a reason to discuss it, even if you were to bring it up in an effort to denigrate my beliefs.  But, there are many things that seem pretty obvious to me as I read the Bible that make me wonder why you see them exactly opposite.  Jn 9:1-3 is one of those passages.  Perhaps my above explanation of the nature of God also fits into that realm, but I'm not sure.....since you are reluctant to waste your time discussing it. David, I continually see you (as well as other LDS folks) read JS's babblings, then try to find scripture to support them. This always results in finding a scripture that contains some of the words in the JS babble, then taking it out of context, redefining some of the words, then twisting it to support the false premise. I see this everywhere in the LDS "interpretation" of the Bible. Since LDS place the writings of JS above the Bible, that results in a mutilation of the Biblical text, leading to a complete misunderstanding of it. There is no hope for you guys to ever find the truth as long as you are too tied up in the LDS lie to open you eyes. The first and most obvious key to understanding this is that the LDS are falling for the same lie that was used to deceive Eve. DAVEH:  Hmmmmm......reading between the lines, Perry....it does seem you are not anxious to discuss Biblical implications. DAVEH:  My beliefs are certainly biased by dogma.  But.......you knew that, didn't you!   The question to you is......are yours?!?!?! Some are, but I find them to be backed by scripture for the most part. I occasionally read scripture and gain an understanding that differs from the dogma I have been taught, but rather than twisting the scripture to make it fit the dogma, as the LDS appear to do, I drop the dogma and gain a new understanding from scripture. DAVEH:  I'm glad to hear you feel that way, Perry.  Perry -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.