The Couplet

[Sleeping in EQ]

I should mention that, yes, my ideas are in contrast to the King Follet discourse (at least as I understand it).

One can hardly attempt to address anything as Mormon theology without some strong contrast and contradiction.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

Hey now... I never professed that I was exactly right... I was just thinking out loud to your question

I was really trying to think outside the box.

I find my thinking is more in line with Red Deaths' in that we have always existed and are progressing … so what we may become is in fact what we are!

Furthermore, I find it interesting that SIEQ has carefully dissected Red deaths’ paraphrasing as if it existed in a bubble separated from many scriptures where Christ may state that he and God, the eternal father are one in the same –at least of one mind and therefore in fact of one ‘orgnaization’ as Red Death put it.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

The passage declares one true God AND Jesus Christ. Jesus is not part of the one true God, even if one considers it an organization. Jesus is outside the notion of one true God in this passage. If it's an organization, he isn't part of it, although he delivers messages for it. Jesus can be the FedEx guy, but he isn't a part of the galactic Halliburton.

maybe the "and" is including Jesus. He's Kinkos AND fedex

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by tooblue

I find my thinking is more in line with Red Deaths' in that we have always existed and are progressing … so what we may become is in fact what we are!

Furthermore, I find it interesting that SIEQ has carefully dissected Red deaths’ paraphrasing as if it existed in a bubble separated from many scriptures where Christ may state that he and God, the eternal father are one in the same –at least of one mind and therefore in fact of one ‘orgnaization’ as Red Death put it.

LOL!

I haven't argued against us always existing and progressing.

I very clearly suggested that the problem MRD and I were discussing is in John 17:3. It is there for all to see. What is wrong with addressing what that passage says? There's nothing wrong with doing so. That other passages have other ideas should go without saying.

Classic Rainman move, TB!

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

maybe the "and" is including Jesus. He's Kinkos AND fedex

It can't be. You're going to have to come to grips with the passage. There is one true God AND Jesus Christ in that passage. The one true God and Jesus Christ are presented as two distinctives.

Frankly, this passage is useful to indict the doctrine of the trinity. Mark 10:18 is too:

"Jesus said to him, '"Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.'"

The "one" here was translated as "man" in the 1611 KJV and in some of the earlier English bibles. This verse could be used to demonstrate that God and man are in the same category in some sense, but the eternal aspects of God, as well as the other issues I mentioned, don't just blow away. In fact, you have man and Jesus (arguably fully God and fully man, but not to Mark) not even being good.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

It can't be. You're going to have to come to grips with the passage. There is one true God AND Jesus Christ in that passage. The one true God and Jesus Christ are presented as two distinctives.

I'm not sure there in anythign to come to grips with here. there are many times where Jesus seperates himself from the father. Do all those mean that when he says the that they are one he is contradicting himself? Here's some food for thought Doesn't he say WE should all be one like he is with the father?

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

I'm not sure there in anythign to come to grips with here. there are many times where Jesus seperates himself from the father. Do all those mean that when he says the that they are one he is contradicting himself? Here's some food for thought Doesn't he say WE should all be one like he is with the father?

Goodness.

Someone save me, please.

Where did you get the idea that I don't think there are passages that seperate Jesus from the Father, and other passages that declare them one????????

I cited one earlier in this post! D&C 20, anyone?

None of that changes what is in John 17:3, which was the passage at issue.

*pulls out hair*

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Classic Rainman move, TB!

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

*pulls out hair*

It's rewarding to see SIEQ in good form this morning.

Have a good weekend?

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Goodness.

Someone save me, please.

Where did you get the idea that I don't think there are passages that seperate Jesus from the Father, and other passages that declare them one????????

I cited one earlier in this post! D&C 20, anyone?

None of that changes what is in John 17:3, which was the passage at issue.

*pulls out hair*

Did it occur to you that you are looking at John 17:3 in only ONE way? BTW... I'm not saying I am right I am just posing possible explanations for the scripture you say is problematic. Please spare us the "he's crazy because he doesn't interpret one scripture exactly how I do" bullshit. I understand why you think John 17:3 is problematic to my theory.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

LOL!

I haven't argued against us always existing and progressing.

I very clearly suggested that the problem MRD and I were discussing is in John 17:3. It is there for all to see. What is wrong with addressing what that passage says? There's nothing wrong with doing so. That other passages have other ideas should go without saying.

Classic Rainman move, TB!

I'm not attacking your opinion or the tone of the conversation -I find it interesting and only wish to offer support for the original idea of MRD's comments at level one of the conversation. There is no need to belittle me or my comments -it's just hurtful and unkind but such is life on CG.

I never suggested that you argued against us always existing. All I can do is say I'm sorry that you choose to prejudge my intent as opposed to demonstrate a desire to understand my contribution. I certainly own some responsibility in all this, yet I'm prepared to move beyond it, unfortunately you do not appear prepared to do the same.