09
Aug
11

A template for gaining eternal life?

“16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19 Honour thy father and [thy] mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? 21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go [and] sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come [and] follow me.  22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.”  (Matthew 19)

When discussing how someone can gain eternal life, Mormons have frequently pointed to these words Jesus spoke to the rich young man – especially his words in v. 17:  “but if thou will enter into life, keep the commandments.”  They then often state that these words show that keeping the commandments are essential for gaining eternal life.  Case closed.

But does that interpretation even coincide with what Mormonism teaches?  As many Mormons are quick to point out, Mormonism does talk about grace.  Mormonism teaches that no one can gain eternal life by their own merits.  “For we know that it is by grace we are saved, after all we can do” (2 Nephi 25:23) is one of the foundational passages of the LDS Church.  Mormonism teaches that it takes a combination of God’s grace and man’s effort to enter God’s presence.  “The phrase ‘after all we can’ teaches that effort is required on our part to receive the fullness of the Lord’s grace and be made worthy to dwell with Him.” (True to the Faith, p. 77)

But that is not what Jesus told the young man!  He doesn’t even hint at grace.  All he talks about is keeping the commandments.  If Mormons want to point to these words as a template for gaining eternal life then they had better not mention grace at all – because Jesus doesn’t.  Here Jesus says it’s 100% – not 50%, not 25%, not 1% – but 100% about keeping the commandments.

That is God’s consistent answer to the question:  “what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?”  If the question is about what a person needs to do, then God’s answer is you have to do everything.  You have to perfectly keep all the commandments.  If that is the question, then grace is not part of the answer.

That, my friends, is a sobering answer.  It is one that can easily lead to despair.  And that is God’s exact intent!  He wants people to despair – of their own goodness and efforts.  That is what Jesus wanted to accomplish with the young man – he wanted the young man to throw up his hands at the impossibility of doing this.  He wanted that because only people who realize that they are in deep trouble look to him for rescue.

Suppose, for a moment, that there was a person who had to get across the ocean but didn’t realize how big it was.  He was a good swimmer so he thought he could swim across.  He was convinced that he could do it, even after many told him he couldn’t.  Finally they urge him to get into the water and start swimming.  They do that for the express purpose of proving to him that he will fail – so that he won’t try when nobody will be around to save him.

Jesus was doing a similar thing with this young man.  He wanted to impress upon him the impossibility of his keeping all the commandments.  Thus no mention of grace.  Contrary to what Mormonism teaches salvation is not a both/and proposition.  It is not both by grace and works.  It is an either/or proposition.  Either by grace or by works.  It’s one or the other.  Not both/and.  The story of the young man, contrary to what many Mormons state, does not support the both/and proposition, but the either/or one.  This is an important point to remember when this story is being discussed.

Even more important to see – and believe – is that our salvation depends 100% on what Jesus did and 0% on what we do.  To him be all the glory!

 

Advertisements

98 Responses to “A template for gaining eternal life?”


  1. 1 rechtglaubig
    August 9, 2011 at 4:38 pm

    4. Come, ye sinners, one and all,
    Come, accept His invitation;
    Come, obey His gracious call,
    Come and take His free salvation!
    Firmly in these words believe:
    Jesus sinners doth receive.

    5. I, a sinner, come to Thee
    With a penitent confession;
    Savior, mercy show to me
    Grant for all my sins remission.
    Let these words my soul relieve:
    Jesus sinners doth receive.

    6. Oh, how blest it is to know;
    Were as scarlet my transgression,
    It shall be as white as snow
    By Thy blood and bitter Passion:
    For these words I now believe:
    Jesus sinners doth receive.

    7. Now my conscience is at peace,
    From the Law I stand acquitted;
    Christ hath purchased my release
    And my every sin remitted.
    Naught remains my soul to grieve,–
    Jesus sinners doth receive.

    8. Jesus sinners doth receive.
    Also I have been forgiven;
    And when I this earth must leave,
    I shall find an open heaven.
    Dying, still to Him I cleave–
    Jesus sinners doth receive.

  2. 2 Echo
    August 9, 2011 at 5:18 pm

    Not what these hands have done
    Can save this guilty soul
    Not what this toiling flesh has borne
    can make my spirit whole.

    Not what I feel or do
    can give me peace with God
    not all my prayers and sighs and tears
    can bear this awful load

    Thy work alone, O Christ
    can ease this weight of sin
    Thy blood alone, O lamb of God
    can give me peace within

    Thy love to me, O God
    Not mine, O Lord, to thee
    can rid me of this dark unrest
    and set my spirit free

    Thy grace alone, O God
    To me can pardon speak
    Thy power alone, O Son of God
    Can this sore bondage break

    I bless the Christ of God
    I rest on love Divine
    and with unfaltering lip and heart
    I call this Savior mine!

    ~salvation depends 100% on what Jesus did and 0% on what we do. To him be all the glory!

  3. 3 Echo
    August 9, 2011 at 5:32 pm

    Herman W. Gockel states in his book: “What Jesus means to me” the following…

    Let my conscience accuse me, let the world point its mocking finger at the record of my failures, let Satan and hell seek to throw fear into my soul by reminding me of the depths of my iniquity – I say, let the devil, the world, and my flesh try to rob me of the inner peace which I have found in Christ’s forgiveness – they shall never undermine my heart’s assurance

    Now I have found the firm foundation
    Which holds mine anchor ever sure;
    Twas laid before the world’s creation
    In Christ my Savior’s wounds secure;
    Foundation which unmoved shall stay
    when heaven and earth will pass away

    Though earthly trials should oppress me
    and cares from day to day increase;
    Though this vain world should sore distress me
    and seek to rob my Savior’s peace;
    Though I be brought down to the dust
    Still in his mercy I will trust

    Sure, his great love shall make me willing
    to bear my lot and not to fret
    While he my restless heart is stilling
    May I his mercy not forget!
    No matter what may be the test,
    his love shall be my only rest

    ~salvation depends 100% on what Jesus did and 0% on what we do. To him be all the glory!

  4. 4 Echo
    August 9, 2011 at 6:00 pm

    Amen!

    ~salvation depends 100% on what Jesus did and 0% on what we do. To him be all the glory!

  5. 5 rechtglaubig
    August 9, 2011 at 6:28 pm

    Yes sir!

    I have no shame in admitting that I am unworthy and a failure. If salvation rested on me, I would be ashamed, but it does not rest on my shoulders. About 2,000 years ago, my God became man and paid for the sins of the world. Three days later, he rose and ascended to Heaven where you and I will follow!

    To Him be all the glory!

  6. 6 jbr
    August 9, 2011 at 7:42 pm

    “Here Jesus says it’s 100% – not 50%, not 25%, not 1% – but 100% about keeping the commandments.”

    That was what Paul wrote from what was revealed from Jesus….

    “they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the “stumbling stone.”

  7. 7 Echo
    August 9, 2011 at 8:17 pm

    ““they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the “stumbling stone.””

    jbr is right.

    The LDS who post here don’t quite yet comprehend what we are saying about this but the fact is this: the LDS pursue it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the “stumbling stone”.

    “Faith” says: ‘Jesus did it all by his works alone, it is his grace alone that already saved me.’

    “Faithlessness” says: ‘I must do the works and only then grace will save me.’

  8. 8 RLO
    August 10, 2011 at 6:09 pm

    . . . and another, one of my favorites, with which I am certain you are quite familiar:

    Just as I am, without one plea,
    but that thy blood was shed for me,
    and that thou bidst me come to thee,
    O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

    Just as I am, and waiting not
    to rid my soul of one dark blot,
    to thee whose blood can cleanse each spot,
    O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

    Just as I am, though tossed about
    with many a conflict, many a doubt,
    fightings and fears within, without,
    O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

    Just as I am, poor, wretched, blind;
    sight, riches, healing of the mind,
    yea, all I need in thee to find,
    O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

    Just as I am, thou wilt receive,
    wilt welcome, pardon, cleanse, relieve;
    because thy promise I believe,
    O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

    Just as I am, thy love unknown
    hath broken every barrier down;
    now, to be thine, yea thine alone,
    O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

    ” . . . because thy promise I believe, O Lamb of God, to thee I come . . . “

  9. 9 shematwater
    August 10, 2011 at 7:53 pm

    The problem with Marks analysis is that it is assuming that Christ is addressing everything that is needed for salvation. However, this is not what the young man is asking.
    The question is not “How do I get to heaven?” but “But what must I do to get their?” In other words the young man was not asking for everything, but only for the part that he was responsible for. So, for Christ to give him only this part is perfectly understandable.
    Consider this: You are hired by a company. What is your first concern? It is “What will I be doing?” You are not so concerned about what others are doing, or even with the final product that the company is creating. You are concerned with what you have to do to fulfill your duties in the company. How would you react if you asked your new boss what you had to do and he gave you an explanation of his job instead?

    In the same way this young man is asking for his duty, what he has to do. In reply Christ tells him. Christ does not tell the man what he is doing, but what the young man must do.

    Actually, the absence of Grace is what gives this understanding and proves the LDS doctrine. If he didn’t have to do anything Christ would have said so. He would have taken this opportunity to teach this, but he doesn’t. He leaves it at Keep the commandments.

    This whole notion that God gives commands to cause despair only proves that the God you speak of is not the loving merciful God that we believe in. No one who truly loves another will intentionally cause despair.

  10. 10 Echo
    August 11, 2011 at 12:23 am

    Shem said: “If he didn’t have to do anything Christ would have said so. He would have taken this opportunity to teach this, but he doesn’t. He leaves it at Keep the commandments.”

    Do you keep all the commandments? I don’t even though I want to.

    Shem said: “This whole notion that God gives commands to cause despair only proves that the God you speak of is not the loving merciful God that we believe in. No one who truly loves another will intentionally cause despair.”

    If I were your doctor and you were my patient and you had a cancer that would be fatal if you didn’t take the prescribed cure available, the most loving thing I could do for you is to tell you that you have a fatal cancer (which would cause you to despair). But then I would tell you that I had the cure (which would heal you and remove your despair)

    If I didn’t tell you, you wouldn’t know you had cancer until it was too late for you to be healed.

    So it is with God.

    You and I have a cancer fatal to our souls. It’s a cancer we are born with. We are born with a sinful nature that can do nothing but sin and that sinful nature believes we can become righteous enough to spend eternity with God some day. Our sinful nature believes we can be saved by grace after all we can do. This is the cancer we need to be told about and that knowledge leads to despair if we are honest and admit the truth. Or it leads to self-righteousness if we aren’t honest and deny the truth. But the blood of Jesus heals our despair instantly. We are born again and given a new nature.

  11. 11 Echo
    August 11, 2011 at 7:51 am

    Gone for the weekend. Talk to you all Sunday or Monday. Have a good weekend!

  12. 12 shematwater
    August 11, 2011 at 5:06 pm

    ECHO

    Nice diversion.

    As to the cancer analogy, that is not what is being presented.

    Using the cancer analogy it would be more accurate to what Mark is saying for the doctor to tell the patient he has the cancer and then give him list of things to do to cure it. Then the doctor, knowing that what he have given won’t work, sits back and waits until the patient gives up in despair before giving him the real cure.
    This is not love, it is self aggrandizement. It is the doctor craving the glory and the preeminence that comes with giving the cure. The love is not for the patient, but for the fame and glory curing the patient brings.

    This is the kind of thing that Mark is saying God does. By saying that God lists the commandments to this young man to cause despair is to say that God is only looking for the glory of of saving him. The fact that Christ does not mention Grace only makes the idea worse, as now we have the doctor telling the person they have a fatal illness, and then giving a false hope of how to cure it without giving any real cure.

  13. August 12, 2011 at 6:51 am

    Shem,
    You are really grasping.

    This young man did what you’re going to do….. go away from Jesus, sad.
    Sad because you will rely on yourself and that isn’t good enough.

    Because you rely on a % of yourself, you will be judged as a failure just as the young man realized.

  14. 14 Kent
    August 12, 2011 at 2:46 pm

    Shem said, “This is the kind of thing that Mark is saying God does. By saying that God lists the commandments to this young man to cause despair is to say that God is only looking for the glory of of saving him. The fact that Christ does not mention Grace only makes the idea worse, as now we have the doctor telling the person they have a fatal illness, and then giving a false hope of how to cure it without giving any real cure.”

    God is not looking for the glory of saving him because the glory is already His because He is God and we are not and never will be.

    We just need to acknowledge that all glory goes to God and no one else, ever.

    We are not truly repentant until we die to ourselves, acknowledge we are sinners who cannot ever save ourselves, and trust and believe in Jesus and what He did in our place on the cross and by Him rising again on the third day.

    Mormons He already saved you 2000 years ago just accept the free gift of grace and let go of youselves and by letting go of yourselves, you will truly be set free!

    Jesus’ death on the cross doesn’t just give us life in the afterlife with a chance of someday progressing to be worthy enough to be with Jesus and Heavenly Father but assures us now that we will be there forever.

  15. 15 Kent
    August 12, 2011 at 2:55 pm

    Add on to my last post, the commandments are to show us we are sinners who can never save ourselves and to point to the cross where Jesus died in our place and no we can never live up to them 100 percent, the requirement if we choose that way to salvation, and no we don’t have another chance to live up to them in the afterlife as once we die, then comes the judgment.

    Hebrews 9:27

    27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment

  16. 16 shematwater
    August 12, 2011 at 4:57 pm

    JBR

    The young man in the story left because he did not want to do what Jesus said he must. I am willing to do anything Christ commands me to do. Thus your assessment is inaccurate, both to the story and to me.

    Because I rely 100% on Christ for my salvation I will be credited for what I have done and receive a reward according to my works.

    KENT

    “God is not looking for the glory of saving him because the glory is already His.”

    True, and so the theology given by Mark is false, as it teaches a God seeking glory.

    “We are not truly repentant until we die to ourselves, acknowledge we are sinners who cannot ever save ourselves, and trust and believe in Jesus and what He did in our place on the cross and by Him rising again on the third day.”

    I couldn’t agree more.

    However, the reason you espouse for God giving commandments has no love in it and is thus contradictory to the love shown in this Great act.

  17. August 13, 2011 at 1:24 pm

    Shem,
    OK…since you ware looking at the man in the story as not wanting to do everything (with no grace being discussed) and you’re going to use him as an an example …. have you sold everything you own?

    If not…you will go away sad from Jesus just like the young man because you rely on a % yourself and you’re going to be judged as failure.

    Jesus commands you to sell everything first.

  18. 18 Kent
    August 13, 2011 at 2:58 pm

    Shem said, “True, and so the theology given by Mark is false, as it teaches a God seeking glory.”

    It is not God is seeking glory but that He wants us to realized who He is and who we are not. He is God and all glory goes to Him and none to us as we are not God and never will be because by saying we can become gods is giving the glory to ourselves.

    I said, “We are not truly repentant until we die to ourselves, acknowledge we are sinners who cannot ever save ourselves, and trust and believe in Jesus and what He did in our place on the cross and by Him rising again on the third day.”

    Shem responded, “I couldn’t agree more.”

    Then why do you believe in grace after all we can do? Because if it has anything to do with what we do, then it isn’t grace and we haven’t died to ourselves and we are not trusting and believing in what Jesus did on the cross and His rising from the grave on the third day.

  19. 19 Kent
    August 13, 2011 at 3:08 pm

    It is my understanding Shem agrees with trusting and believing in Jesus saving us by dying on the cross and rising from the grave if being saved means we are given the gift of living in the afterlife with a chance to progress to someday be worthy enough to be with Heavenly Father and Jesus but what we mean by being saved by Jesus dying on the cross and rising again on the third day means we are already assured to be with them when we die by believing and trusting in what He did and not on anything we do and, again, if it has anything to do with being the conditional ‘after all we can do’, then we haven’t died to ourselves.

  20. 20 shematwater
    August 13, 2011 at 6:08 pm

    JBR

    I have not been commanded to sell everything I own, so again you are inaccurate. He commanded this man to sell everything, but it was not given as a general command.
    However, if the command was given I am perfectly willing to do so, and so your attempt at judging me has failed.

    KENT

    “It is not God is seeking glory but that He wants us to realized who He is and who we are not.”

    So he seeking personal recognition for the glory he has. In other words he is not seeking for the glory, but the acknowledgment of the glory, as what good is glory if no one admits you have it? It is still contradictory, as he is still seeking a type of glory which comes through the recognition of others.

    Now, becoming a god in no way takes glory from our Father, and in truth it makes him even more glorious than he otherwise would have been. Being God is glorious, but making others gods is so much greater. As such, we glorify God to a greater degree than you do.

    As to grace, your assertion is not true. Why can’t we die to ourselves and still admit that we have to give some effort? There is no logic in it. I trust in what Jesus did on the cross and all he has done for me; and it is this trust that causes me to do what he has commanded, for I know that he will give no commandment I cannot fulfill and that will not be for my personal benefit. This is the trust I have in him and what he did. It is all about grace, even with everything I do.

  21. 21 Kent
    August 14, 2011 at 8:04 am

    Shem, God doesn’t want anyone to have any gods but Him so why would he create other gods? But even if it were possible of people to become gods and someday have spirit children who will worship them Mormons would be appointing their spirit children to the wrath of the true God Almighty because no one is to worship any god but Him.

    Exodus 34:14

    14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God

    Mormons die to yourselves and admit that you can’t be gods in the afterlife but will be, if you believe in the true God of the Bible, as the angels of heaven, created beings who are not gods but who worship the true God and also that there is no such thing as marriage in the afterlife so your temple marriage ceremony is unneeded.

    Mark 12:20-25

    20 Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed.
    21 And the second took her, and died, neither left he any seed: and the third likewise.
    22 And the seven had her, and left no seed: last of all the woman died also.
    23 In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife.
    24 And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?
    25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

  22. 22 Kent
    August 14, 2011 at 3:23 pm

    I don’t think the Mormon temple itself is needed as the temple of God, from the old testament, although it was where the people worshipped, was mainly for animal blood sacrifices to atone for sins that don’t need to take place anymore because Jesus death on the cross was the sacrifice that atoned for all sins once and for all.

    So a temple, that probably borrows from Free Mason ceremonies, is not some restoration of the temple of God as if it is, then why aren’t there animal blood sacrifices being done there?

    Also, I don’t see any kind of elaborate sealing in marriage in the old testament temple in the Bible but I don’t need to be sealed in marriage to anyone as I, as part of Christ’s church, am already sealed by the blood of Jesus and that is infinitely better than some ritual that really isn’t needed.

    I know, Mormons will probably say I haven’t studied enough to understand the Mormon temple but really all I need to understand is in the Bible anyway and their temple flat out is not in there.

  23. August 14, 2011 at 11:06 pm

    Shem,
    Keeping within the context of non-grace of salvation… Jesus said “Keep the commandments”

    Did Jesus by chance reveal to you which ones you didn’t need to keep? Would you mind showing from the Bible the least amount that can be kept before it becomes one too many?

  24. 24 Ralph Peterson
    August 15, 2011 at 3:48 pm

    This is a very good analysis Shem. As I read the post my thoughts were similar.

    Grace is Jesus’ part of the “eternal life” quest. Obedience is our part.

  25. 25 Ralph Peterson
    August 15, 2011 at 3:49 pm

    “But that is not what Jesus told the young man! He doesn’t even hint at grace. All he talks about is keeping the commandments.”

    If that is all Jesus talks about, then WHY don’t you believe it?

  26. 26 Ralph Peterson
    August 15, 2011 at 3:50 pm

    Another excellent point.

  27. 27 Ralph Peterson
    August 15, 2011 at 3:52 pm

    Excellent!!!

  28. 28 Ralph Peterson
    August 15, 2011 at 5:02 pm

    “You have to perfectly keep all the commandments.”

    Could you provide a scripture that uses the word “perfectly” in this context?

  29. 29 shematwater
    August 15, 2011 at 5:30 pm

    KENT

    “God doesn’t want anyone to have any gods but Him”

    Wrong. Exodus 20: 3 says “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Notice the ‘before’ in this sentence. There are to be no gods placed in higher honor than our Father, and he is the first one we acknowledge as our God. As such he is the one we worship, as it states in Exodus 34: 14.
    However, this does not preclude the existence and acknowledgment of other gods, only the placing of them before our Father.
    As Paul says to the Corinthians “there be gods many, and lords many.” (1 Cor. 8: 5).

    You are again in error when you claim that our children would be born to damnation for not worshiping our Father, and you show a lack of true understanding of the LDS doctrine.
    God’s commands are to us, his children. They are not to anyone else. Just as I don’t want my son calling anyone else father, he does not want us calling anyone else our Heavenly Father. However, just as my children’s children will not call me father, but grandfather, so too will our spirit children acknowledge our heavenly Father as their Heavenly Grandfather.

    JBR

    There are commands in the Bible are given as general laws that all men must follow to be saved. But then there are those commands that are given to individuals which that individual must follow to be saved. Unless such a specific command is given the individual is to follow the general commands of the law. If such a command is given it is to be followed regardless of the commands of the law.
    For example: It is command “thou shalt not kill.” This is a general command given as part of the law (first recorded in the time of Noah). However, Abraham was commanded to sacrifice his son, a very specific command which he obeyed regardless of the contradiction it held with the general law.
    In like manner the Saul was commanded to annihilate the Amalikites, and was condemned when he kept the king alive (whom Samuel then hacked to pieces).

    Staying in context with the story, when the man asked Jesus the question what was his first response? It was to list the commands given in the law, the general requirements. When the man admitted to have done all this Jesus then gave him a very personal command as the final test (like Abraham offering Isaac as a final test). It is not a general command for in the laws of God (at least not at this time) and thus until I am specifically commanded to do so I am not committing any sin in choosing not to.

    In my life I obey the law which God has set forth as the means whereby salvation is gained. I also will obey any command he gives to me directly, regardless of any contradiction it may seem to carry with it. And I pray daily that I will be given the understanding to know which is which.

  30. 30 Ralph Peterson
    August 15, 2011 at 6:35 pm

    “God doesn’t want anyone to have any gods but Him so why would he create other gods?”

    Good question. But the fact remains that there are other gods, the Bible tells us so.

    Josh. 22:22 The Lord God of gods, the Lord God of gods, he knoweth, and Israel he shall know; if it be in rebellion, or if in transgression against the Lord, (save us not this day,)

    Deut. 10:17 For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:

    Ps. 136:2 O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth for ever.

    Dan. 2:47 The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret.

    Dan. 11:36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

    Ex. 15:11 Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?

    Ex. 18:11 Now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods: for in the thing wherein they dealt proudly he was above them.

    Psalms 86:8 Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works. Also, early church fathers believed that Jesus was a Second God.

    And what about Jesus being the “second God”?

    Many Christian writers identified Jesus with Yahweh. And until the 5th century, it was quite common to call Jesus either a “second God”, the chief angel, or both. It was also made clear that the Holy Spirit occupies the third place.
    Danielou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity, 146

    During the second century Justin Martyr wrote that the “first-begotten”, the Logos, “is the first force after the Father”: he is “a second God, second numerically but not in will,” doing only the Father’s pleasure.
    Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church, 268

    Then I replied, “I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, [of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel…”
    Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 56, in ANF 1:223

    Hermas spoke of the angel of the prophetic Spirit and Jesus as the “glorious…angel” or “most venerable…angel”
    The Pastor of Hermas, Commandment 11, in ANF 2:27-28

    The Ascension of Isaiah referred to both Jesus and the Spirit as angels as well: “And I saw how my Lord worshipped, and the angel of the Holy Spirit, and how both together praised God.”
    Ascension of Isaiah, in TOB, 528

    Clement of Alexandria referred to Jesus as the “Second Cause”.
    Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 7:3

    Peter not only called Jesus both God and angel but also identified him with Yahweh, the prince of the Sons of God mentioned in Deut. 32:7-8
    Peter, in Clementine Recognitions 2:42, in ANF 8:109

    At the turn of the third century, Hippolytus called Jesus “the Angel of [God’s] counsel”
    Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition 4:4, p.7

    Tertullian spoke of Christ as “second” to the Father. However Tertullian stopped short of saying there was a second God because he considered the Father to be the “only true God” and Jesus to be a secondary being. (Note that the creedal trinity is alien to Tertullian)
    Tertullian, Against Praxeas 7, in ANF 3:602 and
    Tertullian, Against Praxeas 13, in ANF 3:607-608

    Origen could speak of Jesus as a “second God”
    Origen, Against Celsus 5:39, in ANF 4:561

    Origen added a qualification: “We are not afraid to speak, in one sense of two Gods, in another sense of one God.” (Very LDS btw)
    Origen, Dail Heracl. 2:3, quoted in Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, 251

    In what sense are they one? “And these, while they are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will. (again very LDS)
    Origen, Against Celsus, 8:12, in ANF 4:643-644

    Novatian maintained that Christ was both angel and God.
    Novatian, On the Trinity 19, in ANF 5:630, cf. On the Trinity in ANF 5:628

    And he equated this God/angel with the Lord (Yahweh) of Hosts.
    Novatian, On the Trinity 12 , in ANF 5:621

    He also made clear that the Spirit is subject to the Son.
    Novatian, On the Trinity 16, in ANF 5:625

    He also said that the unity of the Godhead is NOT some metaphysical “oneness”, but unity of will. (LDS again)
    Novatian, On the Trinity 27, in ANF 5:637-638

    Novatian also did not hesitate to name other angels “gods” as well: “If even the angels themselves…as many as are subjected to Christ, are called gods, rightly also Christ is God.”
    Novatian, On the Trinity 20, in ANF 5:631

    Lactantius approvingly quoted a Hermetic text which spoke of a “second God”
    Lactantius, Divine Institutes 4:6, in ANF 7:105

    Eusebius of Caesarea likewise called Jesus a “secondary being” who is both angel and God.
    Eusebius, The Proof of the Gospel 1:5, 2 vols. translated by W. J. Ferrar

    Eusebius also compared the hierarchy of beings (The Three) to the sun, moon, and stars as spoken of in 1 Corinthians 15:40-42 (another LDS concept)
    Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 7:15, pp.351-352

    However, after the Council of Nicea, such language became unpopular, and some theologians tried to sweep its former popularity under the rug. For example, in the late fourth century Basil of Caesarea feigned that such a thing as a “second God” was unheard of in the “orthodox” faith.
    Basil of Caesarea, On the Holy Spirit 45, in NPNF Series 2, 8:28

    “With the exception of Athanasius virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some form of subordinationism at least up to the year 355; subordinationism might indeed, until the denouement of the controversy, have been described as accepted orthodoxy.” (Hanson, 1988)

  31. 31 Ralph Peterson
    August 15, 2011 at 7:48 pm

    “Mormons He already saved you 2000 years ago just accept the free gift . . . ”

    So, it isn’t all up to Jesus then. By your own words I must do something. Thanks for pointing that out.

  32. 32 Ralph Peterson
    August 15, 2011 at 7:51 pm

    You are reading something into those verses that isn’t there. It doesn’t say that people won’t be in the married state, but only that new marriages will not be performed.

    Too bad you can’t see that.

  33. August 16, 2011 at 6:44 am

    Shem…
    You said…”In my life I obey the law which God has set forth as the means whereby salvation is gained.”
    Then you reject the revelation that by breaking just one commandment …your guilty of breaking all of them.

    You claim that you obey regardless of the contradiction ……

    “the righteous will live by faith” …… is that a contradiction ?
    “We maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from observing the law” …… is that a contradiction ?
    “no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law” …… is that a contradiction ?
    “a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ” …… is that a contradiction ?
    “we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ” …… is that a contradiction ?
    “by observing the law no one will be justified.” …… is that a contradiction ?
    “All who rely on observing the law are under a curse” …… is that a contradiction ?
    “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”

    Shem…you will not be considered justified because you do not keep E V E R T H I N G written in the Book of the Law.

    No Shem… I don’t judge you. You have been already judged and are cursed per Jesus’ revelation. A revelation that you are rejecting.

  34. 34 rechtglaubig
    August 16, 2011 at 7:01 am

    “God doesn’t want anyone to have any gods but Him so why would he create other gods?”
    Good question. But the fact remains that there are other gods, the Bible tells us so.”

    There are many gods. Some examples would be Baal, Asherah, Ra, Molech, Zeus, Mars, Enki, Marduk, Zababa, Loki, and Odin. They are all created by man, not God.

    As for your quotes from the ECFs that you try to use to diminish Christ:

    “And do not suppose, sirs, that I am speaking superfluously when I repeat these words frequently: but it is because I know that some wish to anticipate these remarks, and to say that the power sent from the Father of all which appeared to Moses, or to Abraham, or to Jacob, is called an Angel because He came to men (for by Him the commands of the Father have been proclaimed to men); is called Glory, because He appears in a vision sometimes that cannot be borne; is called a Man, and a human being, because He appears arrayed in such forms as the Father pleases; and they call Him the Word, because He carries tidings from the Father to men: but maintain that this power is indivisible and inseparable from the Father, just as they say that the light of the sun on earth is indivisible and inseparable from the sun in the heavens; as when it sinks, the light sinks along with it; so the Father, when He chooses, say they, causes His power to spring forth, and when He chooses, He makes it return to Himself. In this way, they teach, He made the angels. But it is proved that there are angels who always exist, and are never reduced to that form out of which they sprang. And that this power which the prophetic word calls God, as has been also amply demonstrated, and Angel, is not numbered [as different] in name only like the light of the sun but is indeed something numerically distinct, I have discussed briefly in what has gone before; when I asserted that this power was begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided; as all other things partitioned and divided are not the same after as before they were divided: and, for the sake of example, I took the case of fires kindled from a fire, which we see to be distinct from it, and yet that from which many can be kindled is by no means made less, but remains the same.” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho chapter 128) http://newadvent.org/fathers/01289.htm

    Justin explains that the Son is “indivisible and inseparable” from the Father and goes on to say that the Son was “begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided.”

    “What therefore he says, from the beginning, the Presbyter explained to this effect, that the beginning of generation is not separated from the beginning of the Creator. For when he says, That which was from the beginning, he touches upon the generation without beginning of the Son, who is co-existent with the Father. There was; then, a Word importing an unbeginning eternity; as also the Word itself, that is, the Son of God, who being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is eternal and uncreate. That He was always the Word, is signified by saying, In the beginning was the Word. But by the expression, we have seen with our eyes, he signifies the Lord’s presence in the flesh, and our hands have handled, he says, of the Word of life. He means not only His flesh, but the virtues of the Son, like the sunbeam which penetrates to the lowest places—this sunbeam coming in the flesh became palpable to the disciples. It is accordingly related in traditions, that John, touching the outward body itself, sent his hand deep down into it, and that the solidity of the flesh offered no obstacle, but gave way to the hand of the disciple.” (Clement of Alexandria, Comments on the First Epistle of John) http://newadvent.org/fathers/0211.htm

    Clement says of the Son, “who being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is eternal and uncreate.”

    “The Logos alone of this God is from God himself; wherefore also the Logos is God, being the substance of God.” (Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, Chapter 29. The Doctrine of the Truth) http://newadvent.org/fathers/050110.htm

    “All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons— the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds.” (Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter 2. The Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity and Unity, Sometimes Called the Divine Economy, or Dispensation of the Personal Relations of the Godhead)
    http://newadvent.org/fathers/0317.htm

  35. 35 shematwater
    August 16, 2011 at 5:01 pm

    I am rejecting nothing. Did you not read what I said, because you seem to ignore it completely.

    The righteous live by faith: This means that they obey the law until commanded to do otherwise, just as Abraham did in sacrificing Isaac. And James tells us that it was his faith that prompted him to do so, but that it was his act that made it perfect.
    The truly faithful will obey the commands of God, starting with the general law governing all men, and then any specific command that is given to them as individuals.

    Nothing you list is a contradiction of anything I have said. One who seeks to be justified by the law will do nothing contrary to it, even if given a direct command from God. Abraham was justified by faith for obeying the command of God, regardless of what the law said. However, if he had refused, thinking to obey the law rather than God, he would have lost his salvation and his faith would not have been sufficient to save him.

    Are you understanding any of this?

    I reject no revelation, and the doctrine James teaches is always on my mind. But it is no sin to obey God, no matter what the command is that he gives. If he commands the violation of the law (as he did with Abraham) than the sin would be in holding the law above his command, which is what the pharisees were guilty of.

    You do judge, for you have no clue what my conduct is and whether I keep the law or not. You have judged my actions without knowing them, and you have failed in that judgement.

  36. 36 Echo
    August 16, 2011 at 6:06 pm

    Shem said: “I am rejecting nothing…”

    You are rejecting the blood of Jesus. Yes I know you will respond to that comment with something along these lines:…. ” Echo, we don’t reject the blood of Jesus, you don’t understand what we believe”

    We know what you believe. We understand what you believe. Nothing you have ever said on this blog has been “new” to us. We have always understood Mormon teachings in all the ways you have described in this blog.

    Why don’t you try and make an effort to understand what we are telling you in light of that fact?

  37. 37 rechtglaubig
    August 16, 2011 at 7:56 pm

    “At this time during the session of the Synod, Eusebius, surnamed Pamphilus, bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine, who had held aloof for a short time, after mature consideration whether he ought to receive this definition of the faith, at length acquiesced in it, and subscribed it with all the rest: he also sent to the people under his charge a copy of the Creed, with an explanation of the word homoousios, that no one might impugn his motives on account of his previous hesitation. Now what was written by Eusebius was as follows in his own words:

    …Thus also the declaration that “the Son is consubstantial with the Father” having been discussed, it was agreed that this must not be understood in a corporeal sense, or in any way analogous to mortal creatures; inasmuch as it is neither by division of substance, nor by abscission nor by any change of the Father’s substance and power, since the underived nature of the Father is inconsistent with all these things. That he is consubstantial with the Father then simply implies, that the Son of God has no resemblance to created things, but is in every respect like the Father only who begot him; and that he is of no other substance or essence but of the Father. To which doctrine, explained in this way, it appeared right to assent, especially since we knew that some eminent bishops and learned writers among the ancients have used the term “homoousios” in their theological discourses concerning the nature of the Father and the Son.” (Socrates Scholasticus, Church History, Book 1 chapter 8) http://newadvent.org/fathers/26011.htm

    Eusebius makes it clear that this is no innovation, as you are suggesting. “Eminent bishops and learned writers among the ancients” used the term in the Nicene Creed (homoousios) so what you have said, is once again, incorrect.

  38. 38 shematwater
    August 16, 2011 at 8:37 pm

    ECHO

    If you truly understand than it becomes clear that you are purposely giving false doctrine and meanings and thus are purposely deceiving the people who read these blogs, because you have not once accurately portrayed LDS doctrine. All you do is give false and misleading information, and then nod your head when we correct it with a basic “We know that.”

    I would prefer to think that you don’t really know and understand and so are unknowingly deceiving the readers, as acts out of ignorance are not as bad as those willfully committed. As such, I will continue to say that you don’t understand, as it makes things seem much better for you.

    As to your point, I reject your understanding of the significance of the blood of Christ. I do not reject the blood itself. This is an important distinction and one that should be acknowledged by everyone on these blogs.

  39. 39 Echo
    August 16, 2011 at 9:17 pm

    Shem said: ” because you have not once accurately portrayed LDS doctrine.”

    The problem isn’t me, it’s you.

    We understand LDS doctrine. You don’t see the deception in it, we do. When we try to show that to you, you cry: “you don’t accurately portray LDS doctrine”

    You might want to try listening to us and questioning us before you trip over your own blindness once again.

  40. 40 shematwater
    August 16, 2011 at 10:35 pm

    It is a very nice deflection to just turn things against me.

    There is no deception. The deception you see is for a simple reasons: You lack true understanding of LDS doctrine.

    The problem is that you think you understand LDS doctrine. I do understand it and there is no deception.

  41. 41 rechtglaubig
    August 17, 2011 at 2:14 am

    Ralph, in the future, you might want to give people credit when you cut and paste their entire web page here. “James” probably worked hard on that list.

    I also noted this at the top of his blog,

    “I ran across this list of Ante-Nicene Christians who supposedly taught non-Trinitarian doctrines. I intend on eventually looking them all up and quoting them within their context, but I place them here as they are for now simply so that I don’t lose the list.”

    He posted this in 2008. I hope he found the time in those three years to read and learn what the EFCs really believed and taught.

  42. 42 Echo
    August 17, 2011 at 3:17 am

    Shem, I agree that you understand LDS doctrine. However you have been deceived. if you actually took the time to listen to us, you would learn how that is true. But you aren’t willing to listen to us so there isn’t any point in talking with you on the matter.

  43. 43 Echo
    August 17, 2011 at 7:14 am

    Rechtglaubig said: “Ralph, in the future, you might want to give people credit when you cut and paste their entire web page here. “James” probably worked hard on that list.”

    Can you share the link?

  44. 45 Echo
    August 17, 2011 at 5:16 pm

    Readers,

    Ralph is guilty of Plagiarism. That’s a violation against the 8th commandment:… “Thou shall not steal”

    Ralph is a thief. Sheep don’t listen to thieves…

    John 10:8 “All who ever came before me were thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them.”

    Sheep who follow thieves will end up where the thieves themselves end up…

    1 Corinthians 6:9-11 “ Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the thieves nor… … will inherit the kingdom of God.”

    Mathew 15:14 “If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit”

    Look what happens to a person who has rejected the law of Moses and has two or three witnesses to testify against him…they die without mercy…

    Hebrews 10:26-28 “ If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses DIED WITHOUT MERCY on the testimony of two or three witnesses.”

    Ralph has ample witnesses to testify against him.

    …………………………..

    Ralph, the clock is ticking. The bell is ready to toll. You could die today. Do you want to die without mercy?

    The only way to escape the wrath you are facing is to come clean. Admit the truth that you simply cannot obey all the commandments and admit that:… if obeying all the commandments is necessary to be saved, you won’t be saved because you don’t keep all the commandments. Make a confession of the truth about yourself. But it has to be the truth. No lie’s, no whitewashing, no blame-it-on-others games, no excuses, no wriggling your way out of it, just the reality of the ugly truth.

    It’s only when you freely admit the ugly truth about yourself, that Jesus will come and erase all your fears.

    You have ample witnesses here Ralph to testify against you.

    Stop the hypocrisy of crying out to God saying: “help me do your will!” or “I will try to do better!” or whatever it is that you say.

    Instead say this: “God, I can’t do it!, I can’t meet the necessary requirements of salvation and I never will be able to”

    Jesus will be of no use to you until then.

    Ralph, if you ever want to talk to me offline via email. Contact me through TILM. Click on the link and then click on the Envelope and ask for me. “Echo”

    http://www.tilm.org/

    That invitation is open to anyone reading this blog.

    Ralph, I know you can’t see this from your perspective, but we do care about the welfare of your soul. We love you Ralph, I know you would say you can’t feel the love, that’s because you don’t understand why we do what we do and also because you have been brainwashed into thinking we don’t love you. (i.e. Christians are anti-Mormon) That’s understandable. Cults do brainwash people to the point that they become totally resistant to others. This is made clear by the reactions of you, Shem, Kate and Anne and all the other LDS who have ever posted here. You have been brainwashed to the point that it doesn’t matter how many times we tell you that we aren’t “anti-Mormon” you refuse to believe it. Brainwashing is THAT effective. And the fact of the matter is that brainwashing keeps you away from the truth.

    With every attempt to avoid speaking the truth with us on this, you are hardening your heart more and more and eventually your heart will become too hard to ever be penetrated. God himself finally hardened Pharaoh’s heart.

    The clock is ticking Ralph and your time is nearly up…you could die today!

  45. 46 Ralph Peterson
    August 17, 2011 at 5:45 pm

    Echo,

    You falsely accuse me of plagiarism because you don’t know what plagiarism is.

    Plagiarism
    “the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author AND THE REPRESENTATION OF THEM AS ONE’S OWN ORIGINAL WORK, AS BY NOT CREDITING THE AUTHOR: It is said that he plagiarized Thoreau’s plagiarism of a line written by Montaigne. Synonyms: appropriation, infringement, piracy, counterfeiting; theft, borrowing, cribbing, passing off.

    Since I did NOT claim ANY of the quotes I provided as my own, but rather provided the sources for ALL of them, I am not guilty of plagiarism.

    The fact that James admits that he “ran across this list of Ante-Nicene Christians who supposedly taught non-Trinitarian doctrines” directly means that the collection of this list was NOT his work either.

    Sorry, but copying lists of quotes isn’t plagiarism either, since the quotes are accurately attributed to the original authors.

    But I get it. Since you can’t refute the quotes, you are left with attacking the messenger. I get it.

  46. 47 shematwater
    August 17, 2011 at 8:03 pm

    Echo, I agree that you think you understand LDS doctrine. However you have been deceived. if you actually took the time to listen to us, you would learn how that is true. But you aren’t willing to listen to us so there isn’t any point in talking with you on the matter.

    The deception is not in the LDS doctrine, but in the rest of Christianity, and it will prove to be such when Christ returns.

  47. 48 Echo
    August 17, 2011 at 8:25 pm

    Ralph said: “Echo, You falsely accuse me of plagiarism because you don’t know what plagiarism is.”

    Now just to bring up a couple of examples from the long list you gave us in that post…

    With reference to your post dated August 15, 2011 posted at 6:35pm you said this…

    Hermas spoke of the angel of the prophetic Spirit and Jesus as the “glorious…angel” or “most venerable…angel

    Ralph, the reference you gave for that was this…

    The Pastor of Hermas, Commandment 11, in ANF 2:27-28

    Can you show me Ralph, where I can find all of the words: Hermas spoke of the angel of the prophetic Spirit and Jesus as the “glorious…angel” or “most venerable…angel”

    in that reference?

    Or will I only find the words glorious…angel” and “most venerable…angel” but I won’t find: Hermas spoke of the angel of the prophetic Spirit and Jesus as the in that reference?

    Ralph, why did you not put this statement: Hermas spoke of the angel of the prophetic Spirit and Jesus as the “glorious…angel” or “most venerable…angel” in quotation marks?

  48. 49 Echo
    August 17, 2011 at 8:33 pm

    Ralph said: “Ralph said: “Echo, You falsely accuse me of plagiarism because you don’t know what plagiarism is.”

    Ralph you said…

    Clement of Alexandria referred to Jesus as the “Second Cause”.

    You gave the following reference…”Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 7:3″

    Where can I find those exact words in that reference Ralph? Or will I only find: “Second Cause” but I won’t find Clement of Alexandria referred to Jesus as the in that reference.

    Who’s words are these?…Clement of Alexandria referred to Jesus as the

    Please provide links to justify yourself.

  49. 50 Ralph Peterson
    August 17, 2011 at 8:41 pm

    Desperately trying to salvage your FALSE accusation, I see.

    Well, what else can you do, since you can’t refute the facts?

  50. 51 Ralph Peterson
    August 17, 2011 at 8:42 pm

    What part of “Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 7:3” don’t you understand?

  51. 52 Echo
    August 17, 2011 at 9:09 pm

    Here is the reference and context to Stromata 7:3

    http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-stromata-book7.html

    Here is a quote surrounding “Second Cause”….

    “He is the true Only-begotten, the express image of the glory of the universal King and Almighty Father, who impresses on the Gnostic the seal of the perfect contemplation, according to His own image; so that there is now a third divine image, made as far as possible like the Second Cause , the Essential Life, through which we live the true life; the Gnostic, as we regard him, being described as moving amid things sure and wholly immutable.”

    NOWHERE do we find the words: Clement of Alexandria referred to Jesus as the “Second Cause” in that reference.

    We only find the words: “Second Clause”

    You have stolen and thus Plagiarized the words: Clement of Alexandria referred to Jesus as the “Second Cause”.

    You are a theif and now a liar Ralph.

    Revelation 21:8 “But the fearful, and unbelieving, …and all LIARS, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.”

    Repent!

  52. 53 shematwater
    August 17, 2011 at 9:18 pm

    ECHO

    You again stoop to person attacks to hide your own failure.
    You are the liar and the false swearer, having born a false witness against Ralph.

    Ralph has stolen nothing for the words “Clement of Alexandria referred to Jesus as the ‘Second Cause'” were his own, giving credit to Clement for the phrase which he directly quotes. This is not plagiarism and any knowledgeable and learned person would know this.

    Please repent of your own sins instead of trying to invent ones for other people to repent of.

  53. 54 rechtglaubig
    August 17, 2011 at 9:18 pm

    I am not aware of Clement of Alexandria ever referring to himself in the third person in The Stromata.

  54. 55 rechtglaubig
    August 17, 2011 at 9:23 pm

    Hello Shematwater,

    “Ralph has stolen nothing for the words “Clement of Alexandria referred to Jesus as the ‘Second Cause’” were his own, giving credit to Clement for the phrase which he directly quotes. This is not plagiarism and any knowledgeable and learned person would know this.”

    No, these words were not his own Shem.

    http://lehislibrary.wordpress.com/2008/02/26/ante-nicene-beliefs-on-god/

  55. 56 Ralph Peterson
    August 17, 2011 at 9:38 pm

    The fact of the matter is that Clement of Alexandria referred to Jesus as the “Second Cause”.

    Period.

    No amount of ad hominem changes that fact.

  56. 57 Ralph Peterson
    August 17, 2011 at 9:41 pm

    Thanks for showing that the statement “Clement of Alexandria referred to Jesus as the “Second Cause” ” is accurate and truthful.

  57. 58 Ralph Peterson
    August 17, 2011 at 9:46 pm

    You guys are still barking up the wrong tree (or should I say the wrong red herring)?

    You still don’t understand what plagiarism really is.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism
    Plagiarism is defined in dictionaries as the “wrongful appropriation,” “close imitation,” or “purloining AND PUBLICATION” of another author’s “language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions,” AND THE REPRESENTATION OF THEM AS ONE’S OWN ORIGINAL WORK,

  58. 59 rechtglaubig
    August 17, 2011 at 9:58 pm

    Ralph, the fact of the matter is that you misrepresent Clement by choosing to ignore what he said about the Son. I have already quoted from Clement demonstrating that he believed the Son was equal substance, one with the Father, eternal, and uncreated.

  59. 60 rechtglaubig
    August 17, 2011 at 10:44 pm

    From your link:

    “In other contexts

    Plagiarism on the Internet

    “Content scraping is a phenomenon of copying and pasting material from Internet websites, affecting both established sites and blogs.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism

  60. 61 Echo
    August 17, 2011 at 11:10 pm

    Shem said: “ECHO …You again stoop to person attacks to hide your own failure.
    You are the liar and the false swearer, having born a false witness against Ralph.”

    Shem, are you wanting to be Ralph’s accomplice as a thief and a liar?

    Havn’t you made these false charges against me without reading or examining the link that was provided in rechtglaubig’s post dated August 17, 2011 @ 8:02am ?

    None of the words that Ralph gave are his own! Nor are his plagiarized words actual quotes from the references he gave. They are comments (not quoted in the reference given) that contain quotes(in the refernce given). Read the link! He plagiarized them all.

    http://lehislibrary.wordpress.com/2008/02/26/ante-nicene-beliefs-on-god/

  61. 62 Echo
    August 17, 2011 at 11:19 pm

    You presented them as your own work Ralph. You used someone’s words verbatim. You didn’t put quotation marks around them. Even if you had used quotation marks, it wouldn’t matter. What you have in your post is not quotes verbatim from the references but instead it is someone’s remarks about that reference that includes short quotes from the references.

  62. 63 Echo
    August 17, 2011 at 11:43 pm

    Shem, compare these words of Ralph from Ralph Peterson’s post ( This thread, August 15,2011 @ 6:35pm)

    BEGINNING OF QUOTE FROM RALPH’S POST

    Many Christian writers identified Jesus with Yahweh. And until the 5th century, it was quite common to call Jesus either a “second God”, the chief angel, or both. It was also made clear that the Holy Spirit occupies the third place.Danielou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity, 146

    During the second century Justin Martyr wrote that the “first-begotten”, the Logos, “is the first force after the Father”: he is “a second God, second numerically but not in will,” doing only the Father’s pleasure.
    Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church, 268

    Then I replied, “I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, [of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel…”
    Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 56, in ANF 1:223

    Hermas spoke of the angel of the prophetic Spirit and Jesus as the “glorious…angel” or “most venerable…angel”
    The Pastor of Hermas, Commandment 11, in ANF 2:27-28

    The Ascension of Isaiah referred to both Jesus and the Spirit as angels as well: “And I saw how my Lord worshipped, and the angel of the Holy Spirit, and how both together praised God.”
    Ascension of Isaiah, in TOB, 528

    Clement of Alexandria referred to Jesus as the “Second Cause”.
    Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 7:3

    Peter not only called Jesus both God and angel but also identified him with Yahweh, the prince of the Sons of God mentioned in Deut. 32:7-8

    Peter, in Clementine Recognitions 2:42, in ANF 8:109

    At the turn of the third century, Hippolytus called Jesus “the Angel of [God’s] counsel”
    Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition 4:4, p.7

    Tertullian spoke of Christ as “second” to the Father. However Tertullian stopped short of saying there was a second God because he considered the Father to be the “only true God” and Jesus to be a secondary being. (Note that the creedal trinity is alien to Tertullian)
    Tertullian, Against Praxeas 7, in ANF 3:602 and
    Tertullian, Against Praxeas 13, in ANF 3:607-608

    Origen could speak of Jesus as a “second God”
    Origen, Against Celsus 5:39, in ANF 4:561

    Origen added a qualification: “We are not afraid to speak, in one sense of two Gods, in another sense of one God.” (Very LDS btw)
    Origen, Dail Heracl. 2:3, quoted in Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, 251

    In what sense are they one? “And these, while they are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will. (again very LDS)
    Origen, Against Celsus, 8:12, in ANF 4:643-644

    Novatian maintained that Christ was both angel and God.
    Novatian, On the Trinity 19, in ANF 5:630, cf. On the Trinity in ANF 5:628

    And he equated this God/angel with the Lord (Yahweh) of Hosts.
    Novatian, On the Trinity 12 , in ANF 5:621

    He also made clear that the Spirit is subject to the Son.
    Novatian, On the Trinity 16, in ANF 5:625

    He also said that the unity of the Godhead is NOT some metaphysical “oneness”, but unity of will. (LDS again)
    Novatian, On the Trinity 27, in ANF 5:637-638

    Novatian also did not hesitate to name other angels “gods” as well: “If even the angels themselves…as many as are subjected to Christ, are called gods, rightly also Christ is God.”
    Novatian, On the Trinity 20, in ANF 5:631

    Lactantius approvingly quoted a Hermetic text which spoke of a “second God”
    Lactantius, Divine Institutes 4:6, in ANF 7:105

    Eusebius of Caesarea likewise called Jesus a “secondary being” who is both angel and God.
    Eusebius, The Proof of the Gospel 1:5, 2 vols. translated by W. J. Ferrar

    Eusebius also compared the hierarchy of beings (The Three) to the sun, moon, and stars as spoken of in 1 Corinthians 15:40-42 (another LDS concept)
    Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 7:15, pp.351-352

    However, after the Council of Nicea, such language became unpopular, and some theologians tried to sweep its former popularity under the rug. For example, in the late fourth century Basil of Caesarea feigned that such a thing as a “second God” was unheard of in the “orthodox” faith.
    Basil of Caesarea, On the Holy Spirit 45, in NPNF Series 2, 8:28

    “With the exception of Athanasius virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some form of subordinationism at least up to the year 355; subordinationism might indeed, until the denouement of the controversy, have been described as accepted orthodoxy.” (Hanson, 1988)

    END OF QUOTE

    Now compare that with this…

    http://lehislibrary.wordpress.com/2008/02/26/ante-nicene-beliefs-on-god/

  63. 64 Echo
    August 18, 2011 at 12:33 am

    “Plagiarism is when you use someone else’s words or ideas and pass them off as your own. ”

    From…

    http://kidshealth.org/kid/feeling/school/plagiarism.html

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarize

    “Copying or stealing someone elseÂ’s words or ideas and claiming or presenting them as if they were your own”

    From …

    http://law.yourdictionary.com/plagiarism

    “Plagiarism is defined as stealing or passing off ideas or words without crediting the source ”

    From…

    http://tresero.hubpages.com/hub/WhatIsPlagiarism

  64. 65 Echo
    August 18, 2011 at 1:18 am

    Ralph said: “Thanks for showing that the statement “Clement of Alexandria referred to Jesus as the “Second Cause” ” is accurate and truthful.”

    Yes Ralph, the “second Cause” is found in the reference you gave, but the rest of the words written above you have stolen ( re: Clement of Alexandria referred to Jesus as the) are not themselves found in the reference . They are not found in the publication at all, they are not your words, they are not in the publication, they are someone else’s words and you stole them from the website that is linked to in this thread.

    That is only one example of the many words you have stolen from that website.

  65. 66 Echo
    August 18, 2011 at 1:19 am

    Yes Ralph, the “second Cause” is found in the reference you gave, but the rest of the words written above you have stolen ( re: Clement of Alexandria referred to Jesus as the) are not themselves found in the reference . They are not found in the publication at all, they are not your words, they are not in the publication, they are someone else’s words and you stole them from the website that is linked to in this thread.

    That is only one example of the many words you have stolen from that website.

  66. 67 Echo
    August 18, 2011 at 1:26 am

    Ralph said: “Plagiarism is defined in dictionaries as the “wrongful appropriation,” “close imitation,” or “purloining AND PUBLICATION” of another author’s “language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions,” AND THE REPRESENTATION OF THEM AS ONE’S OWN ORIGINAL WORK,”

    Publication definition….

    “the act or an instance of making information public”

    from…

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/publication

    Ralph has made the information public by copy/pasting it on the public blog
    Ralph, by failing to use quotation marks AND failing to note the author of the words, and copying most of the webpage verbatim, has presented those words as his own words.

  67. 68 Echo
    August 18, 2011 at 2:26 am

    “Copying one sentence word-for-word without “quotations” is also plagiarism. Whether you hand it in to a teacher, or post it in your blog, plagiarism is against the law in most nations.”

    from this link…

    http://www.englishclub.com/writing/plagiarism.htm

  68. 69 Echo
    August 18, 2011 at 2:28 am

    I am heading out of town tommorow morning. Talk to you all early next week.

  69. 70 Ralph Peterson
    August 18, 2011 at 1:51 pm

    No where did I present them as my own work. Sorry but another big FAIL!!!!

  70. 71 Ralph Peterson
    August 18, 2011 at 1:52 pm

    Sorry, but the information was ALREADY PUBLIC!!! So, I didn’t make it public.

  71. 72 Ralph Peterson
    August 18, 2011 at 1:57 pm

    So, pray tell where did James get it?

    After all, OBVIOUSLY, you missed the first sentence from his blog post.

    Since you missed it, here it is.

    “I ran across this list of Ante-Nicene Christians who supposedly taught non-Trinitarian doctrines.”

    So, you are FALSELY representing its origin.

    Just more Echo FALSEHOODS!!!

  72. 73 Ralph Peterson
    August 18, 2011 at 1:59 pm

    rechtglaubig,

    What Clement said about the Son being the “Second Cause” was accurately represented.

    Another FAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  73. 74 Ralph Peterson
    August 18, 2011 at 2:02 pm

    I NEVER claimed them as my own.

    Big FAIL!!!!!!!!!

  74. 75 Ralph Peterson
    August 18, 2011 at 2:05 pm

    Echo, is just sore because he can’t refute what the early church fathers have undeniably said.

    He falsely claims I stole something from James and represented it as my own.

    So, pray tell where did James get it?

    After all, OBVIOUSLY, you missed the first sentence from his blog post.

    Since you missed it, here it is.

    “I ran across this list of Ante-Nicene Christians who supposedly taught non-Trinitarian doctrines.”

    So, you are FALSELY representing its origin.

    Just more Echo FALSEHOODS!!!

  75. 76 shematwater
    August 18, 2011 at 7:05 pm

    The simple fact of the matter is that what Ralph said is a common sentence structure frequently used when quoting from sources. To claim it as plagiarism is false for this simple reason.

    I was mistaken in that Ralph did simply copy and paste from the site, but I am not wrong in saying this is not plagiarism. The sentence is not unique, and you could likely find it in several sources. The only unique part of it is the phrase “second cause” which was credited to the person who first used it. There is no court in the world who that would up-hold the accusation you have laid against Ralph.

    The simple fact is that the accusation of plagiarism is nothing more than a means of diverting the conversation away from the subject that Ralph was actually doing a better job in supporting his point. There is no other purpose, except the possible attempt at destroying the credibility of one who obviously understands more and is better at explaining it.

  76. 77 rechtglaubig
    August 22, 2011 at 10:34 pm

    Shematwater,

    A couple things:

    I fail to understand how you can repeatedly praise Ralph Peterson on his debating skills, when all he does is try to play gotcha with a word or phrase here and there, ignoring what the ECFs taught as a whole.

    Secondly, the main reason for bringing up plagiarism was to demonstrate once again, that Ralph does not care to learn what the Fathers really believe, that his whole goal is to regurgitate quotes and one liners to try to legitimize his own beliefs.

  77. 78 rechtglaubig
    August 23, 2011 at 12:47 am

    I specifically chose the quotes that I did because they demonstrate that,

    “With the exception of Athanasius virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some form of subordinationism at least up to the year 355”,

    is a false statement.

    Belief that the Son is the same essence as the Father is incompatible with subordinationism.

  78. 79 RLO
    August 23, 2011 at 5:12 am

    Hi rechtglaubig;

    Shem and Ralph like to come here and stroke each other, as if that were to somehow strengthen either one of their positions. That one of them would go so far as to defend the intellectual dishonesty of the other’s obvious “cut-and-paste” plagiarism is simply tragic. Actually, Matthew 15:14 describes them together quite appropriately. One clearly leads the other along with himself into a pit.

    By the way, thank you for the knowledge and interest of the ECFs you bring to the discussion.

    RLO

  79. 80 rechtglaubig
    August 23, 2011 at 6:13 am

    Hello RLO and thank you for your kind words.

    I am happy to have been able to help!

  80. 81 shematwater
    August 23, 2011 at 4:04 pm

    rechtglaubig

    First, I do not repeatedly praise his debate skills. In all truth I have done so only once, and it was not a praise of his skills, but a comparison between his and Echo’s, showing how, in that instance, he was a better debater. I am not casual with my words, and have on more than one occasion spoken out against other members of my church.
    Quite honestly, Ralph would have done a much better job if he had ignore the comment of plagiarism. By responding to it I think he has dropped himself down a little in this thread.

    However, the purpose of bringing it up was not to show Ralph doesn’t care to learn. If that was the purpose it would have been stated and then supported. Neither of these happened. This purpose was not stated, and the accusation has not been supported.
    Sorry, but the way the accusation was worded and introduced shows only an attempt to divert the conversation away from the topic at hand. The method in which it was pursued by Echo shows this to be the only real motivation.

    As to the Early Fathers, I think Ralph has done a much better job of supporting his position, and this is done more by accident, as it was the quotes you provide that have convinced me that the Early Father’s did believe in the subordination of Christ to the Father, and more than likely believed that Christ was a very distinct being, separate from the Father.
    The Son can be of the same essence as the Father and sill be subordinate. After all, me and my son are of the same essence (mortality) and yet he is subordinate to me. To say he is of the same essence is only to say he is of the same race (though the word is not used to avoid any mortal connotations). It is only incompatible because you want it to be so.

  81. 82 rechtglaubig
    August 23, 2011 at 4:27 pm

    Shematwater,

    Perhaps it is my fault for not making this more clear from the beginning. Subordinationism means that the Son is a lesser/subordinate essence or nature/being. For instance, Arianism, which taught that the Logos was not the same essence (anomoios) as the Father, was not eternal, and not truly God, is a type of subordinationism.

    Again, belief that the Son is the same essence as the Father is incompatible with subordinationism.

  82. 83 shematwater
    August 23, 2011 at 8:57 pm

    I will concede that. But then I would point out that neither Ralph, nor any of the Fathers ever claimed subordinationism, and neither does the LDS church.

    The Father and the Son are of the same essence, and are thus eternal beings with all power and glory. However, the Son, as is supported by the quotes you gave, is subordinate to the Father, not in essence, but in authority. As I said, it is the same as a father and son in this life. From the quotes you gave this is the meaning of the Early Fathers, and is the meaning Ralph was speaking of.
    (Along with the two being different actual beings, but both made of the same essence.)

  83. 84 rechtglaubig
    August 24, 2011 at 12:43 am

    Shematwater,

    I do not recall posting anything accusing anyone of subordinationism. I believe my time here, in this thread, was mainly spent defending against Ralph’s original post which accused the EFCs of believing in subordinationism.

    “With the exception of Athanasius virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some form of subordinationism at least up to the year 355″

  84. 85 Echo
    August 24, 2011 at 4:48 pm

    Shem said: “The sentence is not unique, and you could likely find it in several sources”

    It wasn’t just “a” sentence. It was “every” sentence (And there are many) written before every quote. Ralph copy/pasted a major portion of the entire webpage. And that’s no accident. That’s no simple sentence structure. If anyone checks out the link given above and compares that with what Ralph posted, it is very clear that this is plagiarism.

    If you want to be his accomplice in that by disagreeing with the facts, you are certainly free to make that choice but then you will also share in his guilt. That’s your choice.

  85. 86 shematwater
    August 24, 2011 at 5:10 pm

    I do apologize. This thread has been long, and memory is not always accurate. I do not have the time to reread every post each time I come here.

    Ralph did give this quote, though it seems to be a quote from someone else (who is given credit). As such, I would ask Ralph to clarify that he knew the definition of the term that you have provided, and if he agrees with it. If he does I will agree that he is in error. If, however, he did not, but was thinking of it in the same way that i originally thought of it, I will stand by what I said, but ask Ralph to be more careful in the future.

  86. 87 shematwater
    August 24, 2011 at 5:12 pm

    ECHO

    You can drop it any time you want. The bitterness of your posts is rather tiring and I really don’t care to continue it any more.

  87. 88 rechtglaubig
    August 24, 2011 at 5:41 pm

    Shematwater,

    Its cool man. No worries. There are a lot of comments being posted so it is easy to loose track of things.

  88. 89 Echo
    August 24, 2011 at 6:38 pm

    Shem said: “You can drop it any time you want. The bitterness of your posts is rather tiring and I really don’t care to continue it any more.”

    I am not bitter at all Shem. Not angry. Nothing. I am nothing other than completely Calm. I am simply concerned for you sharing in his guilt by blindly trusting him without examining the facts for yourself. Think of it as a loving gesture of protection towards you.

  89. 90 shematwater
    August 24, 2011 at 7:49 pm

    Funny. It comes off more as condescending arrogance and animosity towards those who refuse to accept your words blindly.

  90. 91 Echo
    August 24, 2011 at 9:38 pm

    Shem said: “Funny. It comes off more as condescending arrogance and animosity towards those who refuse to accept your words blindly.”

    I honestly don’t think I am better than you Shem therefore I don’t intend to be condescending towards you at all. Do you have animosity towards me? If so, could your own animosity be the cause of all this misjudging of me? It’s really a shame because no matter how hard I try to be kind to you, you always perceive it through the eyes of what seems to be your own animosity against me. And that always leads you to come to the wrong conclusions about me. That really makes me sad.

    I am not asking that you blindly accept my words. The link was given so that you could intelligently and with open eyes, examine the evidence for yourself. That is the opposite of blindly asking you to accept my words isn’t it? Although you have unfortunately blindly accepted Ralph’s words it seems. And that causes me concern for your sake because I don’t want to see you being held accountable by God for the same crimes Ralph is guilty of simply because you didn’t examine the evidence for yourself.

    Shem, please take the time to compare the entire link with what Ralph posted. Don’t let him drag you down into the pit with him.

    You really give me the impression that you didn’t compare the entire link to what Ralph said and that you just went with the one sentence that I posted on this thread, (I didn’t post them all) because you said:…

    The sentence is not unique, and you could likely find it in several sources”

    … as if one sentence is all that Ralph copied. Which is not the case. Ralph copied nearly the entire webpage. Please check it out for yourself. I only used one sentence as an example but there are many more sentences that he copied. If you can’t find Ralph’s original post back wherein he copy/pasted, let me know and I will find it for you and copy/paste it on the bottom of this thread.

  91. 92 shematwater
    August 25, 2011 at 5:12 pm

    ECHO

    I read the entire link. He didn’t plagiarize any more than James did in making this page that Ralph sites, as has been pointed out.
    I have no desire to discuss it further.

    Now, whether you are intentionally condescending or unintentionally so doesn’t matter to me at the moment. Even you last reply is in a condescending tone. ”
    Oh, maybe you are the one who is to blame, a sit couldn’t possibly be me.”
    This is the basic tone of your words, and it is very condescending. Instead of considering that you may, even unintentionally, be giving the impression you have to divert any responsibility away form yourself.

    Now, I am perfectly willing to accept that some of this may be my perceptions, as communication, especially over the internet, is very flawed. However, it is not all my perception, as I have demonstrated. It is, to a large extent, your attitude that causes you to select words and structures of writing. Do not try and blame this on me or erase any responsibility you have in that selection.

  92. 93 Echo
    August 25, 2011 at 9:09 pm

    Shem said: “I read the entire link. He didn’t plagiarize any more than James did in making this page that Ralph sites, as has been pointed out.
    I have no desire to discuss it further.”

    Ralph presented the copy\pasted words as his own. There are no quotation marks around what he posted (which, had he used them, would indicate he was quoting someone else) There is no reference to the link he got it from, there is no Author named etc. Therefore Ralph presented all the information in such a way that it appeared to be Ralph’s own words and appeared that Ralph himself did all the work and research required to come to those conclusions. That very dishonest and it is plagiarism Shem. Examine it carefully with an open mind to what I am saying and get out before you also will be held accountable for it.

    When held accountable for that, Ralph attempted to turn the whole thing on me and was very evasive! That’s absolutely pathetic. It’s like when Adam and Eve were trying to wiggle out of the guilt of their sin by blaming each other, blaming the serpent and blaming God. They didn’t want to take responsibility for their own actions. Just like you now don’t want to take responsibility for your own actions in supporting Ralph. You don’t even want to discuss it anymore. I can’t believe the lengths you two will go to wiggle out of the corner you paint yourselves into. Isn’t confession the better road? It would show you have integrity and that is an admirable quality. You even stoop to attempt to turn this on me by claiming I am being condescending and saying you don’t want to discuss it further. Nice try but it’s a cop out on your part just like Adam and Eve’s copout. . I can understand if you unwittingly trusted Ralph and that led you to support him, I think a man of integrity would however admit that fact once he realized it, he would learn from it and try and avoid it happening again in the future. Instead you choose to hide and run from the facts. Just like Adam and Eve did. It’s not too late Shem to set the record straight.

    Shem said: “Now, whether you are intentionally condescending or unintentionally so doesn’t matter to me at the moment. Even you last reply is in a condescending tone. ”
    Oh, maybe you are the one who is to blame, a sit couldn’t possibly be me.”
    This is the basic tone of your words, and it is very condescending. Instead of considering that you may, even unintentionally, be giving the impression you have to divert any responsibility away form yourself.”

    You believe you are in the one true church on earth and therefore everything you believe can’t possibly be wrong, Does that mean you are being condescending? Does that mean you are arrogant? I don’t think so. But if I am getting pegged as being condescending and arrogant for simply believing I can’t possibly be wrong in this particular point, then your whole entire religion is built on being condescending and arrogant.

    I received an email the other day that had a story along these lines…

    One person is looking through the window at a neighbor who is hanging clothes she just washed up on the clothes line. The wife remarks that the woman is hanging up dirty clothes! To which her husband responded by cleaning her windows so that his wife could see that the woman actually hung up clean clothes.

    Mormonism has put so much dirt on your window by claiming that we are anti-Mormon etc. that all you see is dirt. Remove the dirt from the windows so you can see the truth. They are your windows not mine. Don’t blame me for the dirt on your windows, blame Mormonism. The very fact that Mormonism does this to it’s flock actually leads the flock itself to be condescending! I have lost count of how many times I have told Ralph that we are not anti-Mormon to which he always replies, like a pre-programmed robot who has no ears,….”you are anti-Mormon”. Wash that filth away! We are not anti-Mormon.

    Shem said: “Now, I am perfectly willing to accept that some of this may be my perceptions, as communication, especially over the internet, is very flawed. However, it is not all my perception, as I have demonstrated. It is, to a large extent, your attitude that causes you to select words and structures of writing. Do not try and blame this on me or erase any responsibility you have in that selection.”

    Shem, it’s true that I may not select words and structures to your liking. Communication has never been my strong point and I am a work in progress. But I always try my best to speak to you as respectfully and as lovingly as I know how to. Before making false assumptions, ask questions and get facts. Facts are better than assumptions especially the deadly false assumptions you have been making.

  93. 94 shematwater
    August 25, 2011 at 10:20 pm

    ECHO

    It was not plagiarism. I am willing to admit that I was wrong concerning the fact that he did copy and paste. However, he never said it was his, and so this is an assumption on your part, as well as mine. Second, he is not doing a scholarly work in which he is trying to take credit for the words he has used. Third, this is a casual public forum and thus is the closest one can get to a basic conversation on the Internet. So to demand references for everything said to prove originality is ridiculous.
    However, to appease you and just to get you to drop the entire thing, I will admit that, yes, technically he is guilty of plagiarism. However, in so admitting I will also so that such a case is so insignificant that there is no credible reason for bring it up, and the only reason to continue to drag out the accusation is your own pride and your need to be proven correct. There was nothing morally wrong with what Ralph did; God is not shaking his head in disapproval.
    Simply put, it doesn’t matter.

    On a side note, please stop with the cries of repentance. Honestly, it is this constant accusation of sin and evil that makes you sound condescending and arrogant. Before you start listing our sins, try listing your own.

  94. 95 Echo
    August 25, 2011 at 11:55 pm

    Shem thank you for showing some integrity. I do think God would disapprove of what Ralph did and how he handled the whole situation. You disagree with me. And I will leave it at that.

    Shem said: “On a side note, please stop with the cries of repentance. Honestly, it is this constant accusation of sin and evil that makes you sound condescending and arrogant. Before you start listing our sins, try listing your own.”

    Shem, the simple solution is to stop sinning.

  95. 96 shematwater
    August 29, 2011 at 5:58 pm

    Echo

    You said “Shem, the simple solution is to stop sinning.”

    So why don’t you try it, and when you have done so then come back and tell us how.

  96. 97 Echo
    August 29, 2011 at 6:31 pm

    Shem said: “So why don’t you try it, and when you have done so then come back and tell us how.”

    In Christianity, it is not a sin to point out sin. Apparently in Mormonism it is a sin to point out sin, is that correct?

  97. 98 shematwater
    August 29, 2011 at 8:08 pm

    ECHO

    Please. You do a lot more than just point out sin, and the majority of what you call sin is only sin because of the way you perceive it.
    Then, of course, you never seem to accept when others point out sin in you, which is simple hypocrisy.

    As Jesus said “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
    Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
    Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”
    (Matthew 7: 3-5)

    It is not a sin to point out sin, when one is capable of accurately judging the actions of another as sin. Until you are an accurate and just judge to attempt to point out the sins in others is hypocrisy and should be avoided.


Comments are currently closed.

August 2011
M T W T F S S
« Jul   Sep »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

Blog Stats

  • 182,308 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 998 other followers


%d bloggers like this: