From: kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: Summary, Trinity vs LDS View fo the Godhead
Organization: I can't see any in the immediate vicinity...
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:36:50 GMT

In article <78381@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>In article <1992Dec12.001327.26196@nuchat.sccsi.com> kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>|In article <77904@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
[...]
>|>I think you are wrong - I haven't followed this, but in I John
>|>we are told that if one doesn't have the Son, then one doesn't
>|>have the Father.  It also says that anyone who denies that THE
>|>Christ has come in the flesh is not to be followed or listened to,
>|>for they are the antichrist.
>|
>|Ah, but one needn't have the Father in order to come to the Son, right?
>
>If you don't have the Father AND the Son, then you've missed it.

This may be, but it ignores my question.  What I wanted was verification
of the following sequence:

    (neither) -> Son -> Father+Son

Now, your statement, that if one doesn't have the Son, then one doesn't
have the Father, implies that the following sequence doesn't happen:

    (neither) -> Father -> Father+Son

Now, if neither sequence is possible, then the only possible sequence is:

    (neither) -> Father+Son

But that sequence implies nothing about the mechanism behind achieving the
goal which is at the end of the sequence.

>|More to the point, unless it is explicitly stated that one must have
>|the Son *while alive on Earth* in order to get to heaven, then it follows
>|that it is possible to get to heaven by having the Son after death, but
>|before judgement.
>
>The Scripture tells us that it is appointed to ALL men to die and
>after that the judgment.  I'm not sure there is any loophole there.

In short, you don't know one way or the other.  Good enough for me.

>The people that know the message of Jesus and the cross before they
>die condemn themselves.  

At least, until they accept the message.  What isn't clear is when one
can accept the message.

>The option for those who don't know the
>message is possibly in that every knee will bow and confess Jesus
>as Lord - at that point they may have the chance, but if you've
>knowingly rejected him while alive on this earth, the you are
>responsible for your own informed actions.

Snicker.  "Informed" actions, eh?  Such "information", on par with the
"information" that Elvis is alive, is not something upon which *I* base
my actions.

>|>|I couldn't agree more. 
>|>|Why is it that Tony Rose can't seem to grasp this concept?
>|>|<he asked rhetorically>
>|>|
>|>|Isn't the important thing that one is trying to live ones life
>|>|and do what they think God wants them to? (ie: have faith,
>|>|believe in God, repent from sin, seek the guidance of the Holy
>|>|Spirit, help others, etc.)
>|>
>|>You have to come to THE Jesus and not a Jesus.
>|
>|So tell us: how do you tell the difference between "a" Jesus and THE
>|Jesus?
>
>Jesus is the Christ come in the flesh - he is God - he walked the
>earth as Jesus of Nazareth, born of the Virgin Mary, he died on
>the cross and was raised bodily/physically from the grave on the
>third day according to prophecy.

This is what is believed by the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the
Catholics, the Lutherans, the Anglicans, etc., etc.  Yet there are 
many disagreements between these various factions (if not the individuals
within them as well!) over things like the consequences of non-belief,
the actual content of the message(s) of Jesus, the sinfulness (or lack
thereof) of such things as homosexuality, the personality of God, etc.,
etc.

So once again I ask: how do you tell the difference between "a" Jesus
(e.g., a Jesus associated with one of the above factions) and THE
Jesus?


>|And who are these "other" Jesus people you refer to, anyway?
>
>Are there not advertisements in you USA today and other places that
>tell of the Messiah/the Christ being alive today and living in a secret 
>place?  Some even teach that they are trying to reach a christ 
>consciousness and that Jesus, himself, just was a christ or that he
>reached this consciousness.  Scripture tells us that Jesus is THE
>Christ come in the flesh.

You seem to think that these are mutually exclusive.  This wouldn't be
because they're using the term "christ" in a way that you don't like,
would it?

>|Anyone wonder why heaven is supposedly a "kingdom" instead of a democracy?
>|:-)
>
>Because God reigns supreme - we are his servants. :-)

Ah, but why is this?  Don't you find it strange that your God wants
servants, and yet (presumably) gives free will (whatever that is) to
those that would be his servants?

Entities with free will tend not to make very good servants, for the very
purpose of a servant is to do what he/she/it is told rather than what
he/she/it wants (that the two may converge at times is simply a matter of
luck).

>For Christ and His Kingdom,
>Richard Pitts


-- 
Kevin Brown					kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com
This is your .signature virus: < begin 644 .signature (9V]T8VAA(0K0z end >
	    This is your .signature virus on drugs: <>
			Any questions?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism