The only god I know of that would do that would be the temporary god of the earth. That would be Satan. I will not defend that statement. You know that casting pearls thingy.

President Monson speaks for God doesn’t he? . But I will change my question. If God told you to kill all homosexuals would you do it?

Jo,

Thanks. Do you think Joseph Smith stepped out of those boundaries?

I don't understand. The OT is full of examples where God commanded the killing of innocents.

http://www.gotquestions.org/you-are-gods.html
Question: "What does the Bible mean by 'you are gods' / 'ye are gods' in Psalm 82:6 and John 10:34?"

Answer: Let’s start with a look at Psalm 82, the psalm that Jesus quotes in John 10:34. The Hebrew word translated “gods” in Psalm 82:6 is Elohim. It usually refers to the one true God, but it does have other uses. Psalm 82:1 says, “God presides in the great assembly; he gives judgment among the gods.” It is clear from the next three verses that the word “gods” refers to magistrates, judges, and other people who hold positions of authority and rule. Calling a human magistrate a “god” indicates three things: 1) he has authority over other human beings, 2) the power he wields as a civil authority is to be feared, and 3) he derives his power and authority from God Himself, who is pictured as judging the whole earth in verse 8.

This use of the word “gods” to refer to humans is rare, but it is found elsewhere in the Old Testament. For example, when God sent Moses to Pharaoh, He said, “See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh” (Exodus 7:1). This simply means that Moses, as the messenger of God, was speaking God’s words and would therefore be God’s representative to the king. The Hebrew word Elohim is translated “judges” in Exodus 21:6 and 22:8, 9, and 28.

The whole point of Psalm 82 is that earthly judges must act with impartiality and true justice, because even judges must stand someday before the Judge. Verses 6 and 7 warn human magistrates that they, too, must be judged: “I said, `You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High.' But you will die like mere men; you will fall like every other ruler.” This passage is saying that God has appointed men to positions of authority in which they are considered as gods among the people. They are to remember that, even though they are representing God in this world, they are mortal and must eventually give an account to God for how they used that authority

In Deuteronomy chapter 13, God was giving very specific instructions on who He wants the Hebrews to kill; and for very specific reasons. According to God's own commandments, the ones who were to be killed were not innocent. They were people who were not keeping His commandments, but were trying to undo all that had been accomplished by freeing the Israelites from captivity in Egypt.

We are taught that vengeance belongs to God; this appears to be an occasion when God is commanding mankind (the Israelites) to be the ones who carry out His vengeance. I agree this does seem over-the-top; yet God's purpose seems to be at least two-fold. One, to carry out His vengeance; two, to test His people to see if they would be obedient to this commandment.

Your question is a fair one. It also brought to mind how man will also follow and believe in other men who commit wholesale massacre of innocents - even to the point of attempting to completely exterminate them. How can man do this? Especially when it is man's idea and not God's idea from which these attempts are born?

I find comfort in the higher teachings of the Hebrew Kabbalah wherein knowledge of the reincarnation of souls continues until a soul is able to return to God. Therefore, those whom God commanded be put to physical death lose only their physical body in that particular incarnation. Physical death cannot kill the soul.

Blessings,

jo

Son of Ishmael,

No, I do not believe that he stepped outside of those boundaries.

Blessings,

jo

My take is that God is merciful and sees the picture in total. To kill a baby when God commands it is to likely bring that baby to the arms of God. To allow that group of people to exist, grow and spread would only mean that those babies would become even worse than their parents. They would be bound for eternal separation from God and God's people would soon become just like them. It must also be remembered that these people had opportunity to flee the area.
That does not mean that God doesn't hear the prayers of the righteous. Rahab the harlot is an example. She saw that God was on the side of the Hebrews and God provided her with an opportunity to save herself and her entire family. So, God is selective and knows what He is about even when we do not... And no, I do not hold to reincarnation of souls. That idea is founded in a system of human works to gain eternal salvation by trial.

President Monson speaks for God doesn’t he? . But I will change my question. If God told you to kill all homosexuals would you do it?[/quote]


Bump

That is like saying if God told you to jump over the moon would you do it. Or say count all of the grains of sand on the earth. Let us stay within the bounds of reasonable questions. Doing what ifs to get a rise out of an audience may get you off but it serves no other purpose.

But let me add that in a past age the Law as given by Moses was to establish guidelines for the newly formed nation of the Jews. In that system of Laws there were some that spoke of forbidden acts that were punishable by death. If I lived then I would carry out the Law. But the Law was to be carried out after a witness brought a complaint. No complaint, no judge, no verdict, no punishment. But what most fail to realize is Laws have levels and some are more important than others. If we all loved our neighbor as we love our self then how many of us would report our self to the judge? Why is it easy to report another but not our self? If we all lived by the second most important commandment then all other Laws are not needed.

Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Many do not understand what Jesus was saying here.

Lucky us that we did not live in the OT times I guess.

What authority canonized scripture, and if you believe they failed, why do you believe they succeeded, i.e., why use the Bible at all?



What? Lol. I had to google that one. here you go....

http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/bobs10c.html



Gives you some idea about the Kabbalah then, doesn't it.



No, a group of people claiming secret knowledge arose separately.



Actually, no.



I know this is a Mormon favorite thing, I've seen it plenty of times. When a child is sitting at his/her mother's breast, is meat hidden from them because they aren't able to eat it yet? Are they unaware that meat exists? Do we hide meat from infants?





No one says he was.



You believe that many disciples stopped following Jesus because a symbol of eating was to hard to accept?

Jesus' blood is not the blood of an animal.



You should check your history, and what the Orthodox churches believe and teach. The great schism was over the Bishop of Rome claiming primacy, and the Filioque.



Again, check your history.



No one is asking you to accept anything "automatically". Either you believe Jesus has guided His Church, as He promised, or you don't. I believe He has, and still does. I don't hold a belief that the Holy Spirit stopped guiding Christ's Church. I don't automatically accept the myth of a "great apostasy", really don't see any evidence for it.



This isn't logical. It is people, humans, who crucified Jesus Christ. Not their knowledge (or lack thereof). Many Jews converted to Christianity. Jews certainly know the Messianic prophecies. What was not accepted by some, or many Jews, of Christ's time (and today), is that He is the Messiah.

Certainly they had all the knowledge available to them about the Messiah, including Jesus Christ Himself, in person. He was a Jew, and Jewish scripture is referenced many times (particularly in the Gospel of Luke and the letter to the Hebrews) in order to show very specifically the prophecies that Jesus fulfills. What meaning would this have to Jews if they hadn't been first taught, and knew, about the prophecies to begin with? Or didn't find them to be important?

Some people believe, some do not. Still the same today, for anyone, Jew or not. If you think it is knowledge that saves, then all you have to do is say "Jesus is Lord and Savior" to someone. There, they have the knowledge. Done.



God's Word is Jesus Christ. Present in many ways. Scripture, Eucharist, His Church, prayer, the baptized. The Holy Spirit is not something separate from God. God is: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They testify of each other. The Holy Spirit bestows gifts of God, giving them, but what is given is not something separate from the Word of God.

Nipper, consider this again: "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments {works}." Jesus Christ

You actually think that link makes a case that can be understood?

From the Septuagint

Deu 5

5:7 Thou shalt have no other gods before my face.

5:8Thou shalt not make to thyself an image, nor likeness of any thing, whatever things [are] in the heaven above, and whatever [are] in the earth beneath, and whatever [are] in the waters under the earth.
5:9 Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor shalt thou serve them; for I am the Lord thy God, a jealous God, visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation to them that hate me,

5:11 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, for the Lord thy God will certainly not acquit him that takes his name in vain.

5:12 Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God commanded thee.

5:16 Honour thy father and thy mother, as the Lord thy God commanded thee; that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest live long upon the land, which the Lord thy God gives thee.

5:17 Thou shalt not commit murder.

5:18 Thou shalt not commit adultery.

5:19 Thou shalt not steal.

5:20 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

5:21 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife; thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, nor his field, nor his man-servant, nor his maid, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any beast of his, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

These are the Ten Commandments.

Here is what the Vatican says:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7F.HTM

IV. "You Shall Not Make For Yourself a Graven Image . . ."

2129 The divine injunction included the prohibition of every representation of God by the hand of man. Deuteronomy explains: "Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a graven image for yourselves, in the form of any figure...."66 It is the absolutely transcendent God who revealed himself to Israel. "He is the all," but at the same time "he is greater than all his works."67 He is "the author of beauty."68

2130 Nevertheless, already in the Old Testament, God ordained or permitted the making of images that pointed symbolically toward salvation by the incarnate Word: so it was with the bronze serpent, the ark of the covenant, and the cherubim.69

2131 Basing itself on the mystery of the incarnate Word, the seventh ecumenical council at Nicaea (787) justified against the iconoclasts the veneration of icons - of Christ, but also of the Mother of God, the angels, and all the saints. By becoming incarnate, the Son of God introduced a new "economy" of images.

2132 The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, "the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype," and "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it."70 The honor paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone:

So the RCC changed what God wrote with His own finger.

Once more:

5:9 Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor shalt thou serve them; for I am the Lord thy God, a jealous God, visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation to them that hate me,



You think it is Okay to pray to a stone or metal?

Here is a list from the Vatican

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... ommand.htm

Do you even know what your Church teaches? If you accept what the RCC tells you that is fine. But don't deny what they say or do.

LittleNipper, if you ever believe that God is commanding you to kill a baby, please promise me you will immediately walk away from the baby, dial 9-1-1, and explain your reasoning to the person who answers.

He he! I think he was just giving an extreme example.

The idea of 10 commandments is anachronistic. No Jew in Jesus' day thought of there being only ten commandments, lists of the Deuteronomical laws extended into the hundreds. It's mostly based on this same passage, but the division into 10 specific commandments is a modern hermeneutic.

And jo, you are utterly & completely wrong about your history. Read... well, anything, actually. You're just wrong: Orthodox maintain the "Real Presence" of Christ in the Eucharist, and at an Orthodox Council in the 17th century they even went so far as to use a Greek translation of the technical term "transubstantiation," although the Orthodox have always maintained that the process by which ordinary bread and wine becomes the Body and Blood of our Lord is radically incomprehensible.

Franktalk, the CCC isn't a rewrite of scripture. If you want to discuss rewrite of scripture, let's start a thread on the JST!

CCC is first and foremost a teaching tool. That is what the word "catechism" means, to teach. No commandment is left out, no meaning is changed, none of the ten are rejected. It is teaching the ten commandments in the light of Christ, i.e., the greatest commandment, beatitudes, etc. A comparison of the CCC to LDS culture would be lesson manuals.

Sometimes Catholics pray in front of statues, but we are never praying to the statue.

Mormons have sacred images, I've seen it in Mormon homes myself. Pictures of temples and the Christus statue seem to popular among Mormons. Also, American Mormons have a patriotism that venerates the US flag. These images have special meaning to Mormons. They are images that are held at a level that is above other images.

Islam is the only religion I know of that bans, 100%, any sacred images, in theory. Even they hold mosques and certain flags as sacred enough to kill over.

As for the Ten Commandments in Exo 34:28 they re mentioned as Ten. Of course there are more. But a reasonable read would show the ten that I indicated in an earlier post. What the RCC did was inline with what the Pharisees had done to the Law of Moses.

Right now I am reading a book written by William Bennett in 1837 on the history of the Eucharist. He stated at that time the Church of England did not believe that Christ flesh and blood were actually present. The book is titled "The Eucharist, its history, doctrine, and Practice." A good read by the way. Free from Google books.

The issue with East and West over the Eucharist was the issue of leavened bread or not. The East said Christ would not manifest in leavened bread. But what I have found is that different periods of time people felt one way and at others they held a completely different opinion. It is possible that Jo found such a time. I will let her respond with her source.

Are you sure?

From the Vatican

"9 "The ministry of catechesis draws ever fresh energy from the councils. the Council of Trent is a noteworthy example of this. It gave catechesis priority in its constitutions and decrees. It lies at the origin of the Roman Catechism, which is also known by the name of that council and which is a work of the first rank as a summary of Christian teaching. . "12 The Council of Trent initiated a remarkable organization of the Church's catechesis. Thanks to the work of holy bishops and theologians such as St. Peter Canisius, St. Charles Borromeo, St. Turibius of Mongrovejo or St. Robert Bellarmine, it occasioned the publication of numerous catechisms."

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3.HTM

And what did the Council of Trent say?

They said let us tell you how to interpret the scriptures. They said the Pope is the final authority. How odd that a God that made us needs a man to tell us how to read His Word. So if the Pope signed off on the Catechism does that mean it carries the final authority? So does one use the teachings of the Catechism to understand the Bible or does one use the Bible to understand the Catechism?

For me if any church leader told me something that disagrees with my understanding of scripture I would reject that leader. Which the LDS can do. Please show me where the members of the RCC can kick out a Pope?

FrankTalk, check out "Bishop of Rome under Constantine I" at Wikipedia. There is a painting of him offering his crown to Sylvester "and it {the Roman church} exercised all the power of the beast {kingdom} before it {the Roman empire}. It's under the painting of his vision of the cross (mark of the beast)!