In Response To A Faulty INC Article
By : Bro. Nath
Here's the blog link which i don't recommend reading
http://iglesianicristobyconverttoinc.blogspot.com/2012/09/some-unbiblical-beliefs-of-mormons.html
I will mark the contents of the article in red
1. On the Canon of scripture
The blog post reads :
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recognizes three more books, in addition to the Bible, as basis for judging the belief and conduct of men:
"The Latter-day Saints accept 4 volumes as the standard works of the Church. These are the Bible, the book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. By unanimous vote of the General Conference, these four have been declared to be established rule or test, by which the belief, the teachings, and the conduct of men must be judged." (Hyrum M. Smith and Janne M. Sjodahl. Doctrine and Covenants commentary, P. xi, emphasis ours)
On the other hand, the apostles taught that man will be judged according to the gospel or Gods words written in the Bible and anyone who goes beyond or adds to what is written in the gospel will be punished:
"In the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel." (Rom 2:16, New King James Version, emphasis ours)
"Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." (I Cor. 4:6, New International Version, emphasis ours)
"For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book, If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book:" (Rev. 22:18, New King James Version, emphasis ours)
First of all, Yes, we do accept 4 volumes as the standard works of our church. Second, the Scriptures doesn't contain any statement that truth must be based from only one book. the scriptures say that truth comes from divine revelation from God through his servants, the prophets (Amos 3:7) , from scriptures (2 Tim. 3:16-17), from the guidance of the Holy Ghost (Jn. 14:26; 16:13), and through asking God himself through prayer (James 1:5-6). the Bible itself teaches that its only profitable and not sufficient (2 Tim. 4:16-17)
On Romans 2:16, Nope. the context of the verse doesn't say anything about Sola Scriptura. it talks about the gospel. it talks about the importance of the gospel and not the sufficiency of the Bible.
Commenting on 1 Corinthians 4:6, Bro. Robert Boylan, an LDS Theologian and Apologist wrote :
1 Cor 4:6: An Example of the Eisegesis Inherent within Sola Scriptura Apologetics
To give an example of the eisegesis inherent within the popular “proof-texts” Protestants tend to employ, let us consider the injunction to not go beyond what is written in 1 Cor 4:6. The verse in the KJV reads:
And these things brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.
The NRSV renders the text as:
I have applied all this to Apollos and myself for your benefit, brothers and sisters, so that you may learn through us the meaning of the saying, "Nothing beyond what is written," so that none of you will be puffed up in favor of one against another.
Reformed (Presbyterian) apologist, Matt Slick, president of the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry (CARM) writes the following which is representative of comments made by Protestant apologists who latch on this passage in defence of sola scriptura:
The Bible clearly tells us that it is the standard of truth. We are not to exceed what the Scriptures say. "Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that in us you might learn not to exceed what is written, in order that no one of you might become arrogant in behalf of one against the other." (1 Cor. 4:6). (Matt Slick, “Is the Bible Alone Sufficient for Spiritual Truth?” URL: http://carm.org/bible-alone-sufficient-spiritual-truth)
While much has been written on the phrase (τὸ μὴ ὑπὲρ ἃ γέγραπται), the best suggestion is that the phrase refers to the Old Testament texts Paul had previously quoted:
1 Cor 1:19 (Isa 29:14)
1 Cor 1:31 (Jer 9:23)
1 Cor 2:9 (Isa 64:3)
1 Cor 2:16 (Isa 40:13)
1 Cor 3:19 (Job 5:13)
1 Cor 3:20 (Psa 94:11)
1 Cor 4:5 (while not an OT reference, alludes to a saying of Jesus which Paul may have access to in oral form [cf. Luke 12:1-3])
There is nothing in 1 Cor 4:6 that, exegetically, hints at sola scriptura. Indeed, many Protestant scholars do not regard 1 Cor 4:6 as teaching sola scriptura. Notice the following from Reformed Protestant, Kevin J. Vanhoozer in a recent essay:
Commentators disagree as to the meaning of “not [to go] beyond what is written.” Some translations take the neuter article to as a convention for introducing quoted material: “that you may learn . . . the meaning of the saying, ‘Do not go beyond what is written’” (1 Cor. 4:6, NIV). What, however, does this maxim mean and, in particular, what does “what is written” refer to? Exegetes express considerable Angst over the interpretation of this passage; hence the following suggestion must remain somewhat tentative.
It is likely that some at Corinth were trying to supplement the theology of the cross with a higher, second-state “spiritual wisdom,” a superior form of knowledge that led to boasting. Paul’s command not to go beyond what is written is best taken as referring to (1) the Old Testament in general; (2) what Paul has explicitly cited from the OT in 1:19, 31; 2:9, 16; 3:19, 20, about the importance of not boasting in worldly wisdom but rather in what the Lord has done; and (3) the “foolish” gospel message of the cross “in accordance with the Scriptures” (cf. 15:3-4). In context, then, to go beyond Scripture means “to boast in human wisdom supposing that we are, as it were, smarter than God.”
According to this “Corinthian principle,” then, there is a sense in which Christians must never go beyond the “foolishness” of Christ crucified and the biblical texts that reveal it as God’s wisdom and power of salvation. The definitive message of the cross implies a certain sufficiency of the gospel. Christians must not think that they have a superior knowledge of God or way of salvation if this conflicts with the God of the gospel or with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. To take leave of the gospel—call it the “bad beyond” (i.e., a move against the grain of the text)—is not an option. The question, however, is whether there is a “good beyond” (i.e., a move along the grain of the text)—a right and proper way of building on and respecting the prophets and apostles that yields a longer obedience, and a longer understanding. (Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “May We Go Beyond What is Written After All? The Pattern of Theological Authority and the Problem of Doctrinal Development” in D.A. Carson ed. The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2016], 747-92, here, pp. 749-50)
Furthermore, even John Calvin, in his commentary on First Corinthians, did not regard this verse as teaching sola scriptura; instead, he took a cautiously neutral position:
The clause above what is written may be explained in two ways—either as referring to Paul’s writings, or to the proofs from Scripture which he has brought forward. As this, however, is a matter of small moment, my readers may be left at liberty to take whichever they may prefer.
For more similar comments from historical and modern Protestant commentators, see Douglas Beaumont, "Does 1 Corinthians 4:6 teach Sola Scriptura?"
Finally, it should be noted that this verse has a number of textual difficulties. In his translation of the Bible, James Moffatt rendered the verse thusly:
Now I have applied what has been said and above to myself and Apollos, to teach you . . .
In the corresponding footnote, we read:
The text and the meaning of the phrase between μαθητε and ινα μη are beyond recovery.
Commenting on this verse, Catholic scholar Louis Alonso Schökel wrote:
In St. Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians, Chapter IV, Verse 6, we come upon a confusing sentence: “I have applied these things to myself . . . by way of illustration . . .that . . .you may learn not to be puffed up . . . transgressing what is written.” The biblical commentators cannot agree in explaining this sentence and many conjecture that the text was poorly transmitted. In detective-story fashion, they suspect a slight “crime” against the text, a crime of which only vague clues remain . . .The present text reads:
ινα εν υηιμ μαθητε “that in our case you may learn”
το μη υπερ του ενος φυσιουσθε “that no one may be puffed up at another’s expense.”
The scribe neglected to copy the negative, so in his revised text he wrote the negative between lines:
Ινα μαθητε φρονειν “that you may learn to be prudent”
Μη “not”
Ινα εις φυσιουσθε “that one may be puffed up . . .”
The next scribe copied this down correctly, but because he wanted to be perfectly accurate, he noted in the margin that the “not” had been written between the lines over the letter “a” in the word “that”;
Ινα μαθητε φρονειν “that you may learn to be prudent”
Ινα μη εις . . .φυσιουσθε “that no one may be puffed up”
(το μη υπερ α γεγραπται)
(the “no” is written above the “a”)
The next copyist took the marginal note as a genuine addition and incorporated it into the text. In Greek, however, the letter “a” can be the neutral relative pronoun, meaning “that which.” Thus by incorporating the marginal note into the text he effected a change in its meaning:
Ινα μαθητε “that you may learn”
Το μη υπερ α γεγραπται φρονειν “not to know more than what is written”
Ινα μη εις υπερ του ενος φυσιουσθε “that no one may be puffed up at another’s expense.” (Louis Alonso Schökel, Understanding Biblical Research [London: Burns & Oates Limited, 1968], 66-68)
In light of the textual issues about this verse, it is a very slender thread to hang a doctrine such as sola scriptura on. Protestant apologists who attempt to support sola scriptura should be cautious in appealing to this verse, not just in light of the exegetical difficulties, but textual also.
On Revelations 22:18
The greek of the verse reads :
Μαρτυρῶ ἐγὼ παντὶ τῷ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου· ἐάν τις ἐπιθῇ ἐπ’ αὐτά, ἐπιθήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐπ’ αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ, καὶ ἐάν τις ἀφέλῃ ἀπὸ τῶν λόγων τοῦ βιβλίου τῆς προφητείας ταύτης, ἀφελεῖ ὁ θεὸς τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς καὶ ἐκ τῆς πόλεως τῆς ἁγίας τῶν γεγραμμένων ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ. (ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ 22:1`8-19) Nestle Aland 28/UBS5
The text in bold, τοῦ βιβλίου (Tou Biblion) is a genitive neuter singular, which means it refers only to one book and not 66. if the author wished to refer more than one, he should have wrote των βιβλία (Tou Biblia). John only refers to the book of revelations and not to the whole "Bible". what John is doing is employing a curse against people who want to corrupt the text of Revelation. Copyright doesn't exist at that times so authors put on a curse against those who want to corrupt the text of that particular author. Indeed, there are parallels in the Old Testament to elighten the context of Revelations 22:18-19
" Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." (Deut. 4:2)
" What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it." (Deut. 12:32)
If we use the logic of protestants and other sects that support sola scriptura (like the INCM), there should be no other books that will exist after Deuteronomy.
2. The Corporeality of the Father
...the "latter-day Saints" believe that God is a man?
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints lexicon of doctrines cite Doctrine and Covenants as teaching that the Father in heaven is a man with a body of flesh and bones and who became God by reaching glory and perfection:
"God the Father is a glorified and perfected Man, a Personage of flesh and bones [D&C], in which tangible body and eternal spirit is housed." (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine. p. 30, emphasis ours)
But this directly opposes the teaching of the Bible that the true God is not man in nature but a spirit having no flesh and bones:
"God is not a man, that He should lie; Nor a son of man, that he should repent:" (Num. 23:19, NKJV, emphasis ours)
"God is a Spirit." (Jn.4:24, Ibid, emphasis ours)
"Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself: handle Me, and see; for a spirit have not flesh and bones, as you see I have." (Lk. 24:39, Ibid, emphasis ours)
The context of Numbers 23:19 doesn't say anything against the tangible body of God. rather, it contrasting the sinful state of a man to the Perfect and Glorified state of God. this is all over in the Bible when God wants to contrast His glorified state to man's sinful nature. second, the often misinterpreted verse and commonly used proof text against the corporeality of God, John 4:24 speaks methaporicaly and not literaly. the greek of the verse reads :
πνεῦμα ὁ θεός, καὶ τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας αὐτὸν ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ δεῖ προσκυνεῖν (Jn. 4:24) Nestle Aland 28
In the Greek grammar, this is a qualitative predicate nominative, which deals with, not composition, but one's qualities. Furthermore, the context of the passage refers to man's worhsip to God and not to the composition of his deity. Here, Jesus is talking to a Samaritan Woman, in which their worship is priveleged only at Mount Gezirim (Jn. 4:4-26), while the Jews priveleged at Jerusalem. Jesus here teaches the Samaritan woman (and we) how to worship God; that worship should not be only priveleged at only one place for God is omnipresent; He is everywhere through His Spirit. that's why the Son of God here said that ".... they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." (which the manaloist cutted off). it doesn't address the physical composition of God but tells us how we interact with God. other places also tells us that "God is Love" (1 Jn. 4:8,16), "God is Light" (1 Jn. 1:5), and "God is a consuming fire" (Deut. 4:24; Heb. 12:29). Is God only those things? (if taken literally).
Furthermore, taking the absolutist view of this verse to its "logical" conclusion, one would have to state that it is a requirement that men are to shed their physical bodies in order to worship God--if God is only spirit and this passage requires men to worship God "in spirit," then men must worship God only in spirit. Thus, to cite John 4:24 against the teachings of Mormon theology is to claim that men cannot worship God as mortal beings, which is ludicrous. It would also akin to absolutising 1 Cor 15:45, and stating that Christ currently exists in an unembodied spirit, notwithstanding Christ's corporeal ascension (Acts 1:11) and His being depicted as embodied in post-ascension visions of Jesus (e.g., Acts 7:55-56).
A related criticism that has been raised by some opponents (e.g., Craig Blomberg in How Wide the Divide?) is that if God were to possess a physical body, this would make divine omnipresence impossible as God would be rendered "limited" or "finite" by that body. Therefore, God, in LDS theology, could not be omnipresent, something required by this verse. However, Latter-day Saints affirm only that the Father has a body, not that his body has him. The Father is corporeal and infinitely more, and if a spirit can be omnipresent without being physically present, then so can a God who possesses a body and a spirit.
Indeed, the Bible affirms that, though the Father has a body (e.g., Heb 1:3), His glory, influence and power fills the universe (Jer 23:34). He is continually aware of everything in the universe and can communicate with, and travel to, any spot instantaneously (Psa 139:7-12).
Furthermore, a question that is begged is that “spirit” is immaterial. However, many early Christians believed that “spirit” was material (e.g., Origen, On First Principles, Preface 9 and Tertullian, Against Praxaes, 7), something consistent with LDS theology (D&C 131:7). This is all the more telling when Origen did not hold to "divine embodiment"--instead, he rejected such. Notwithstanding, unlike modern Evangelical critics, he realised that John 4:24 does not support such an interpretation.
Another related verse that is often raised by critics is that of Luke 24:39. However, as with John 4:24, this is another example of eisegesis. What Evangelical critics fail to note is that the converse of the statement is not true. A living physical body most definitely does have a spirit. In fact, it is physically dead without one (James 2:26). A spirit alone does not have a physical body. But if God has a physical body, he also has a spirit. Therefore, even though God is corporeal, it is appropriate to say that God "is spirit" (as in John 4:24), for spirit is the central part of His nature as a corporeal being.
As Daniel Smith wrote on this passage and its underlying theology:
Are We Seeing a Pneuma?
Having Peter, the primary witness of the appearance traditions, verify the empty tomb is a significant development, since it narrowly limits how the appearances can be interpreted. It requires complete bodily continuity between the dead Jesus in the tomb and the risen Jesus who appears—which is very different from the complete transformation Paul envisioned. Of all the Gospels, Luke is the most explicit about the mode of Jesus’ postresurrection bodily existence. When he appears suddenly among the Eleven and the rest (24:36), Jesus himself explains that he is not a spirit (Gk., pneuma), for he has flesh and bones as a spirit cannot . . . In Greco-Roman antiquity, it would not be out of the question to see someone who was dead . . . Although such an apparition could be interpreted as some aspect of the dead person—that is, the soul, shadow, or daimon—becoming visible to living persons. We would call this a ghost—as ancient Greek and Latin speakers would as well, with varying terminology—or possible, a “post-mortem apparition.” In fact, most current translations render pneuma here in Luke 24:39, 39 not as “spirit” but as “ghost.”
According to ancient thinking, certain types of people were more likely to appear after their death in ghostly manifestations. As noted, the typical view was that those who had died young (or before marriage), those who had died violently, and those whose bodies were not given proper burial or cremation were more likely to have a restless post-mortem existence and to cause trouble for the living. Jesus, executed as a criminal, would of course all into the category of those dead by violence. Virgil (70-19 BCE) held that among those doomed to a restless afterlife, excluded for a time from rest in Hades, were people unjustly executed or who took their own lives. Lucian (c. 125-80 CE) has one of his characters number the crucified (or impaled) among those especially given to appearing in ghostly manifestations: “such as, if a person hanged himself, or had his head cut off, or was impaled on a stake, or departed life in some other way such as these” (Lucian, Philops, 29) . . . An outsider could have concluded that followers of Jesus who were talking about his post-mortem appearances had simply seen his ghost. As it seems, this would not have been considered unusual or extraordinary. But Luke makes it clear to his readers that however the appearances of Jesus could have been interpreted, they were epiphanies of someone who had been raised from the dead—with an empty tomb. As already seen, this is confirmed by Peter himself when he finds the tomb empty except for the grave clothes . . . Another potential concern arises, however, in view of the interpretation of the resurrection appearances as ghostly apparitions . . . The corpus of spells and incantations called the Greek magical papyri attests to this, in particular to the ways that body parts could be used to control the ghosts of the dead—and the shade or spirit (often called a daimōn) of a person who died by violence would be particularly powerful if controlled. (Daniel A. Smith, Revisiting the Empty Tomb: The Early History of Easter [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010], 106-7)
The apologetic value of this to Latter-day Saints can be seen by the fact that some critics tie Jesus’ words in Luke 24:39 with John 4:24 as “proof” that God cannot be embodied. Apart from the fact that Jesus is assuring his followers in Luke 24:39 that he was not a ghost, critics are guilty of eisegesis of John 4:24, too.
Moreover, it would not be appropriate to say that God is only a spirit based on this verse--here, Christ clearly has a spirit and a physical body. His spirit had just been recombined with His perfected and glorified physical body in the resurrection, a point He took great pains to demonstrate (Luke 24:41-43). He was not, however, "a spirit" in the sense of being only a spirit.
In unique LDS Scripture, we find something similar to John 4:24 echoed in D&C 93:33-35:
For man is spirit, The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fullness of joy. And when separated man cannot receive a fullness of joy. The elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle of God, even temples; and whatsoever temple is defiled, God shall destroy that temple.
In this pericope, man is said to be “spirit,” though such does not preclude embodiment.
Biblical scholars would also disagree with the common eisegesis of John 4:24. New Testament scholar, C.H. Dodd wrote:
It should be observed that to translate 'God is a spirit' is the most gross perversion of the meaning. 'A spirit' implies one of the class of πνευματα, and as we have seen, there is no trace in the Fourth Gospel of the vulgar conception of a multitude of πνευματα. (C.H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel [Cambridge: 1958], 225 n. 1)
On the absurdities of understanding John 4:24 as teaching the ontological nature of God, Origen wrote:
Many writers have made various affirmations about God and His ουσια. Some have said that He is of a corporeal nature, fine and aether-like; some that he is of incorporeal nature; others that He is beyond ουσια in dignity and power. It is therefore worth our while to see whether we have in the Scriptures starting-points (αφορμας) for making any statement about the ουσια of God. Here [1 John i.2] it is said that πνευμα is, as it were, His ουσια. For he said, πνευμα ο θεος. In the Law He is said to be fire, for it is written, ο θεος ημων πυρ καταναλισκον (Deut. iv.24, Heb. xii. 29), and in John to be light, for he says, ο θεος πως εστι, και σκοτια εω αυτω ουκ εστιν ουδεμια (1 John i.5). if we are to take these statements at their face value, without concerning ourselves with anything beyond the verbal expression, it is time for us to say that God is σωμα; but what absurdities would follow if we said so, few realise. (Origen, Commentary on John xiii.21-23, as cited by Dodd, ibid., 225-26).
Note: Origen in this passage understood it unwise to appeal to John 4:24 "at face value" to support God not being embodied, notwithstanding his use of such a verse in On First Principles to support God (the Father) not having a body. Origen is not a witness for divine embodiment, but only a witness that early Christians, including those who would use John 4:24 as evidence that the Father does not have a body, would not go "beyond what is written" about this text (Origen is, sadly, very complex, in comparison to other early Christian authors).
This is mirrored by the comments of Raymond Brown in his magisterial 2-volume commentary on John's Gospel:
[This verse is] not an essential definition of God, but a description of God's dealing with men; it means that God is Spirit toward men because He gives the Spirit (xiv 16) which begets them anew. There are two other such descriptions in the Johannine writings: "God is light" (1 John i 5), and "God is love" ( 1 John iv 8 ). These too refer to the God who acts; God gives the world His Son, the light of the world (iii 19, viii 12, ix 5) as a sign of His love (iii 16). (The Gospel According to John (i-xii), vol. 29 of the Anchor Bible [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966], 167.)
Alan Kerr offered the following comments on John 4:24:
6.6.4 God Is Spirit Commentators generally agree that this statement is not a philosophical proposition but a message about God in his relation to people. Two similar sentences about God in 1 John bear a similar sense: God is light (1:5) and God is love (4:8). It is also generally agreed that ‘Spirit’ here captures the Old Testament nuances of רוח as the life-giving creative power of God. The decisive issue for John is summed up in the stated purpose of the Gospel: ‘These things are written that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you might have life through his name’ (20:31). The goal is life (ζωή), and it is God the Spirit who gives life (6:63). This life is traced back to being born of the πνεῦμα, the life-Giver (3:5). In some way this life is bound up with knowing—knowing the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent (17:3)—that is, knowing the truth.Given this statement—πνεῦμα ὁ θεός—we must interpret ἐν πνεύματι in the light of it. It cannot refer to any spirit, but only to the Spirit that is God. While the primary emphasis of ἐν πνεύματι is on the life-giving and creative power of the worship, there is also a secondary significance intimated by 3:8 where πνεῦμα is the unconfined, uncontrolled and uncomprehended wind/Spirit that blows where it wills. The presence of God who is πνεῦμα is not to be confined to Jerusalem or Gerizim. The true worshipper should therefore not be confined by spatial limitations.
On the other hand, for John the Spirit is the Spirit of Jesus. This emerges most clearly in the pronouncement about the Johannine Paraclete, who extends and communicates the presence of Jesus while Jesus is away. So in Jn 14:18 Jesus can say, ‘I am coming to you,’ and refer directly to the Spirit Paraclete in the previous verses (14:16, 17). C.F.D. Moule succinctly comments on how Christology dominated pneumatology in early pneumatic experience, a comment that aptly sums up the entwinment of the Spirit and Jesus in John: ‘The Spirit is Christified; Christ is Spiritualized.’ So given Johannine pneumatology it would be in order to say that worshipping ‘in Spirit’ would be partially equivalent to worshipping ‘in Jesus’. (Alan Kerr, The Temple of Jesus' Body: The Temple Theme in the Gospel of John [New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002], 192-94)
http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2017/10/lynn-wilder-vs-latter-day-saint-and.html
Furthermore, taking the absolutist view of this verse to its "logical" conclusion, one would have to state that it is a requirement that men are to shed their physical bodies in order to worship God--if God is only spirit and this passage requires men to worship God "in spirit," then men must worship God only in spirit. Thus, to cite John 4:24 against the teachings of Mormon theology is to claim that men cannot worship God as mortal beings, which is ludicrous. It would also akin to absolutising 1 Cor 15:45, and stating that Christ currently exists in an unembodied spirit, notwithstanding Christ's corporeal ascension (Acts 1:11) and His being depicted as embodied in post-ascension visions of Jesus (e.g., Acts 7:55-56).
A related criticism that has been raised by some opponents (e.g., Craig Blomberg in How Wide the Divide?) is that if God were to possess a physical body, this would make divine omnipresence impossible as God would be rendered "limited" or "finite" by that body. Therefore, God, in LDS theology, could not be omnipresent, something required by this verse. However, Latter-day Saints affirm only that the Father has a body, not that his body has him. The Father is corporeal and infinitely more, and if a spirit can be omnipresent without being physically present, then so can a God who possesses a body and a spirit.
Indeed, the Bible affirms that, though the Father has a body (e.g., Heb 1:3), His glory, influence and power fills the universe (Jer 23:34). He is continually aware of everything in the universe and can communicate with, and travel to, any spot instantaneously (Psa 139:7-12).
Furthermore, a question that is begged is that “spirit” is immaterial. However, many early Christians believed that “spirit” was material (e.g., Origen [who rejected a corporeal God, so such is significant], On First Principles, Preface 9 and Tertullian, Against Praxaes, 7), something consistent with LDS theology (D&C 131:7).
Another related verse that is often raised by critics is that of Luke 24:39. However, as with John 4:24, this is another example of eisegesis. What Evangelical critics fail to note is that the converse of the statement is not true. A living physical body most definitely does have a spirit. In fact, it is physically dead without one (James 2:26). A spirit alone does not have a physical body. But if God has a physical body, he also has a spirit. Therefore, even though God is corporeal, it is appropriate to say that God "is spirit" (as in John 4:24), for spirit is the central part of His nature as a corporeal being.
Moreover, it would not be appropriate to say that God is only a spirit based on this verse--here, Christ clearly has a spirit and a physical body. His spirit had just been recombined with His perfected and glorified physical body in the resurrection, a point He took great pains to demonstrate (Luke 24:41-43). He was not, however, "a spirit" in the sense of being only a spirit.
In unique LDS Scripture, we find something similar to John 4:24 echoed in D&C 93:33-35:
For man is spirit, The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fullness of joy. And when separated man cannot receive a fullness of joy. The elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle of God, even temples; and whatsoever temple is defiled, God shall destroy that temple.
In this pericope, man is said to be “spirit,” though such does not preclude embodiment. Furthermore, this shows that contra the video, LDS theology holds, not to "either-or" (a false dilemma one finds so often within Evangelical theology [e.g., either the Bible or another authority; either faith or works; either spirit baptism or water baptism . . . ]), but "both-and"; the Father is both spirit and embodied.
Biblical scholars would also disagree with the common eisegesis of John 4:24. New Testament scholar, C.H. Dodd wrote:
It should be observed that to translate 'God is a spirit' is the most gross perversion of the meaning. 'A spirit' implies one of the class of πνευματα, and as we have seen, there is no trace in the Fourth Gospel of the vulgar conception of a multitude of πνευματα. (C.H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel [Cambridge: 1958], 225 n. 1)
On the absurdities of understanding John 4:24 as teaching the ontological nature of God, Origen wrote:
Many writers have made various affirmations about God and His ουσια. Some have said that He is of a corporeal nature, fine and aether-like; some that he is of incorporeal nature; others that He is beyond ουσια in dignity and power. It is therefore worth our while to see whether we have in the Scriptures starting-points (αφορμας) for making any statement about the ουσια of God. Here [1 John i.2] it is said that πνευμα is, as it were, His ουσια. For he said, πνευμα ο θεος. In the Law He is said to be fire, for it is written, ο θεος ημων πυρ καταναλισκον (Deut. iv.24, Heb. xii. 29), and in John to be light, for he says, ο θεος πως εστι, και σκοτια εω αυτω ουκ εστιν ουδεμια (1 John i.5). if we are to take these statements at their face value, without concerning ourselves with anything beyond the verbal expression, it is time for us to say that God is σωμα; but what absurdities would follow if we said so, few realise. (Origen, Commentary on John xiii.21-23, as cited by Dodd, ibid., 225-26).
This is mirrored by the comments of Raymond Brown in his magisterial 2-volume commentary on John's Gospel:
[This verse is] not an essential definition of God, but a description of God's dealing with men; it means that God is Spirit toward men because He gives the Spirit (xiv 16) which begets them anew. There are two other such descriptions in the Johannine writings: "God is light" (1 John i 5), and "God is love" ( 1 John iv 8 ). These too refer to the God who acts; God gives the world His Son, the light of the world (iii 19, viii 12, ix 5) as a sign of His love (iii 16). (The Gospel According to John (i-xii), vol. 29 of the Anchor Bible [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966], 167.)
Alan Kerr offered the following comments on John 4:24:
6.6.4 God Is SpiritCommentators generally agree that this statement is not a philosphical proposition but a message about God in his relation to people. Two similar sentences about God in 1 John bear a similar sense: God is light (1:5) and God is love (4:8). It is also generally agreed that ‘Spirit’ here captures the Old Testament nuances of רוח as the life-giving creative power of God. The decisive issue for John is summed up in the stated purpose of the Gospel: ‘These things are written that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you might have life through his name’ (20:31). The goal is life (ζωή), and it is God the Spirit who gives life (6:63). This life is traced back to being born of the πνεῦμα, the life-Giver (3:5). In some way this life is bound up with knowing—knowing the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent (17:3)—that is, knowing the truth.Given this statement—πνεῦμα ὁ θεός—we must interpret ἐν πνεύματι in the light of it. It cannot refer to any spirit, but only to the Spirit that is God. While the primary emphasis of ἐν πνεύματι is on the life-giving and creative power of the worship, there is also a secondary significance intimated by 3:8 where πνεῦμα is the unconfined, uncontrolled and uncomprehended wind/Spirit that blows where it wills. The presence of God who is πνεῦμα is not to be confined to Jerusalem or Gerizim. The true worshipper should therefore not be confined by spatial limitations.
On the other hand, for John the Spirit is the Spirit of Jesus. This emerges most clearly in the pronouncement about the Johannine Paraclete, who extends and communicates the presence of Jesus while Jesus is away. So in Jn 14:18 Jesus can say, ‘I am coming to you,’ and refer directly to the Spirit Paraclete in the previous verses (14:16, 17). C.F.D. Moule succinctly comments on how Christology dominated pneumatology in early pneumatic experience, a comment that aptly sums up the entwinment of the Spirit and Jesus in John: ‘The Spirit is Christified; Christ is Spiritualized.’ So given Johannine pneumatology it would be in order to say that worshipping ‘in Spirit’ would be partially equivalent to worshipping ‘in Jesus’. (Alan Kerr, The Temple of Jesus' Body: The Temple Theme in the Gospel of John [New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002], 192-94)
That the Father is embodied can be seen in a host of texts; take, for instance, Gen 1:26 which speaks of humanity being created in the "image" and "likeness" of God. The long-standing Latter-day Saint interpretation finds solid scholarly support, including the following:
[T]he Hebrew word for ‘image’ is also employed by P of Seth’s likeness to Adam (Gen 5.3), following a repetition of Genesis 1’s statement that humanity was created in the likeness of God (Gen. 5.1), which further supports the notion that a physical likeness was included in P’s concept. It is also noteworthy that the prophet Ezekiel, who was a priest as well as prophet at a time not to long before P, and whose theology has clear parallels with P’s, similarly speaks of a resemblance between God and the appearance of man. As part of his call vision in Ezek. 1.26, he declares of God, ‘and seated above the likeness of a throne was something that seemed like a human form’ (the word demut, ‘likeness’, is used, as in Gen. 1.26). Accordingly, there are those who see the image as simply a physical one. However, although the physical image may be primary, it is better to suppose that both a physical and spiritual likeness is envisaged, since the Hebrews saw humans as a psycho-physical totality.
The use of selem elsewhere in Genesis and of demut in Ezekiel certainly tells against the view of those scholars who see the divine image in humanity as purely functional in nature, referring to humanity’s domination over the natural world that is mentioned subsequently (Gen. 1.26, 28), an increasingly popular view in recent years. Although the two ideas are closely associated, it is much more likely that humanity’s rule over the world (Gen. 1.26-28) is actually a consequence of its being made in the image of God, not what the image itself meant. (John Day, From Creation to Babel Studies in Genesis 1-11 [London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013], 13-14).
Such conclusions are also supported by vv.21-25:
And God created great whales, and every living creature that moves, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind (לְמִינֵהו): and God saw that it was good. And God blessed the, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind (לְמִינָהּ), cattle, and creeping thing and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the earth after his kind (לְמִינֵהו): and God saw that it was good. (Gen 1:21-25)
According to this pericope, each class of creation is described as having been created "after its kind (alt. species [מִין])." Subsequently, they were assigned a duty--to multiply and replenish the earth. Horses do not look like mice and fish do not look like cats. They were created after their own kind. This is important as plays an important exegetical role vis-a-vis the relationship between God and the physical nature of man in the verses that immediately follow this pericope:
And God said, Let us make man in our image (צֶלֶם), after our likeness (דְּמוּת): and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image (צֶלֶם), in the image (צֶלֶם) of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Gen 1:26-28)
As Presbyterian Old Testament scholar, Meredith Kline, wrote:
By setting the image-likeness formula in the context of sonship, Genesis 5:1-3 contradicts the suggestion that the image idea is a matter of representative status rather than of representational likeness or resemblance. For Seth was not Adam's representative, but as Adam's son he did resemble his father. The terminology "in his likeness" serves as the equivalent in human procreation of the phrase "after its kind" which is used for plant and animal reproduction and of course refers to resemblance. (Meredith G. Kline, “Creation in the Image of the Glory-Spirit” Westminister Theological Journal, 39 [1976/77]: note 34)
Kline, on this theme, also comments that "the traditional avoidance of the visible corporeal aspect of man in formulating the imago Dei doctrine (in deference to the noncorporeal, invisible nature of God) has not reckoned adequately with the fact of theophanic revelation and in particular has missed the theophanic referent of the image in the Genesis 1 context" and that "the theophanic Glory was present at the creation and was the specific divine model or referent in view in the creating of man in the image of God."
Interestingly, Kline (correctly) rejects the idea that Gen 1:26 is evidence of a plurality of persons within the "one God" (a later reading that desperately tries to read the Trinity back into the Old Testament). On Gen 1:26 in the same article, he wrote:
In Genesis 1:26 it is the plural form of the creative fiat that links the creation of man in the image of God to the Spirit-Glory of Genesis 1:2. The Glory-cloud curtains the heavenly enthronement of God in the midst of the judicial council of his celestial hosts. Here is the explanation of the “let us” and the “our image” in the Creator’s decree to make man. He was addressing himself to the angelic council of elders, taking them into his deliberative counsel.
This understanding of the first-person-plural fiat is supported by the fact that consistently where this usage occurs in divine speech it is in the context of the heavenly councilor at least of heavenly beings. Especially pertinent for Genesis 1:26 is the nearby instance in Genesis 3:22, a declaration concerned again with man’s image-likeness to God: “Man has become like one of us to know good and evil.” The cherubim mentioned in verse 24 were evidently being addressed. In the cases where God determines to descend and enter into judgment with a city like Babel or Sodom, and a plural form (like “Let us go down”) alternates with a singular, [30] the explanation of the plural is at hand in the angelic figures who accompany the Angel of the Lord on his judicial mission. [31] When, in Isaiah’s call experience, the Lord, enthroned in the Glory-cloud of his temple, asks, “Whom shall I send and who will go for us?” (Isa. 6:8), the plural is again readily accounted for by the seraphim attendants at the throne or (if the seraphim are to be distinguished from the heavenly elders, as are the winged creatures of the throne in Revelation 4) by the divine council, which in any case belongs to the scene. (A similar use of the first person plural is characteristic of address in the assembly of the gods as described in Canaanite texts of the Mosaic age.)
3. The Baptism for the dead
..."Latter-day Saints" baptize the dead by proxy?
The Church of Christ of Latter-day Saints alleges that through baptism by proxy, people of all ages who have long been dead could still become heirs in the Kingdom of God:
" Based on the principle of vicarious service, The Lord has ordained baptism as a means whereby all his worthy children of all ages can become heirs of the salvation in his kingdoma vicarious proxy labor" (Mormon Doctrine. p. 73, emphasis ours)
However, not only is this doctrine not found in the Bible, it also contradicts the biblical teaching that before a person could be baptized, he should first hear and believe in the gospel. The dead know nothing and cannot do anything. They have no more share in what the living do, much less a hope for Gods reward if they have failed to secure it in life:
"And He said to them, Go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe not will be condemned. (Mk. 16:15-16, NKJV, emphasis ours)
"For the living know that they will die: But the dead know not any thing, And they have no more reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; Nevermore will they have a share in anything that is done under the sun. (Eccl. 9:5-6, Ibid, emphasis ours)
Wee can see here the lack of scriptual study of the author. he said "However, not only is this doctrine not found in the Bible, it also contradicts the biblical teaching that before a person could be baptized, he should first hear and believe in the gospel." yet Peter reports us that the Saviour preached at the spirit prison where people who died had the second chance to receive the Gospel.
" For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;" (1 Pet. 3:18-19)
" For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." (1 Pet. 4:6)
On Ecclesiastes 9:5-6
This is one of the most commonly cited biblical texts in favour of either soul-sleep or soul-death, a doctrine held by groups such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Christadelphians, and other groups, although this goes against the teaching of other texts that clearly explicate that the dead are conscious, such as 1 Pet 3:18-20, a key text in favour of the LDS doctrine of posthumous salvation (see a discussion here).
R.B.Y. Scott, in his commentary on Proverbs/Ecclesiastes, offered the following exegesis of vv.5-6:
With this unequivocal statement about death, cf. vs. 10 and Pss. vi 5 EV, lxxxviii 12 EV, cxv 17; Job xiv 10-12. Other OT writers speak of the "shades" of men as still possessing consciousness and memory, where they "dwell" in the gloomy, dusty cavern of Sheol beneath the earth (Num xvi 30-33; 1 Sam xxviii 8-14; Ps xcliii 3; Isa xiv 9-11, 15-17). Job ponders the possibility of resurrection (xiv 14-17, xix 25-27), and in the eschatology of late prophecy and apocalyptic writing resurrection if affirmed (Isa xxvi 19; Dan xii 2). (R.B.Y. Scott, Proverbs/Ecclesiastes [Anchor Bible; Garden City: Doubleday, 1965], 246)
http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2016/02/does-ecclesiastes-95-7-support-soul.html
Bro. Jeff Lindsay wrote :
Because of the physical resemblance between one who has recently passed away and one who has fallen asleep, some cultures refer to death as "sleep". The ancient Jews were no different; even Jesus used this metaphor:
"These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep. Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well. Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep. Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead." (John 11:11-14, cf. 1 Thessealonians 4:13-17)
A metaphor is a figure of speech use to suggest a likeness between two different objects, ideas, or states of being. So, even though death is not sleep, there are certain similarities. Nevertheless, the point to keep in mind is that this metaphor is not meant to be a comparison between the state of a disembodied spirit and sleep; but rather, it is meant to be a comparison between the state of a corpse and sleep.
Generally, when a person dies, the body lies down; the eyelids close; and both the heartbeat and the breathing stop. Similarly, when a person sleeps, the body lies down; the eyelids close; and both the heartbeat and the breathing are markedly slowed. Thus, the appearance of one who has fallen asleep resembles that of one who has recently passed away. As a person rests in a state of unconsciousness in sleep, so a corpse rests in a state of no consciousness in death (Ecclesiastes 9:5-6, 10; Psalms 146:4).
In the Bible, there are number of verses which show that this metaphor is used specifically to describe the state of a corpse. For instance, a corpse sleeps in the "dust" of the earth (Dan 12:2); a corpse sleeps and is "buried" (1 Kings 2:10, 11:43, 14:31, 15:8, 15:24); and a corpse sleeps and sees "corruption" (Acts 13:36). Even Matthew wrote that "bodies" sleep in the graves (Matthew 27:52).
On the other hand, this metaphor is never used to describe the state of a disembodied spirit; which neither sleeps in the "dust", nor is "buried", nor sees "corruption". Remember, the body returns to the dust of the earth, not the spirit (Genesis 3:19, Ecclesiastes 12:7). Even so, some still insist that the spirit is just a form of energy or life force to the body, as electricity is to a computer, having no consciousness apart from the body. But to their dismay, the Bible teaches otherwise.
Before leaving this subject, however, one should also consider one of the primary differences between death and sleep; specifically between the state of "no consciousness" and the state of "unconsciousness". As described above, a corpse rests in a state of "no consciousness" because no spirit dwells inside a dead body (James 2:26). Thus, a corpse has neither knowledge, thoughts, nor emotions. On the other hand, a person who is asleep rests in a state of "unconsciousness" because a spirit still dwells inside a sleeping body.
While asleep, one retains the knowledge acquired thus far in mortality and continues to have unconscious thoughts and feelings in dreams. A person can even solve mathematical problems or think of new ideas during this period of unconsciousness. In fact, some individuals have received revelation from God through dreams; showing that one can acquire new knowledge while asleep (e.g. Genesis 37:5-11, Daniel 2, and Matthew 1:18-25). These inspired dreams also show that a person can see and hear while asleep, not with one's physical eyes and ears, but with one's spirit. Therefore, since the spirit inside the body can see, hear, feel, think, and learn while one's body is asleep; shouldn't the same spirit outside the body be able to perform these same functions while one's body is dead?
On the Baptism for the dead
The Apostle Paul explicitly reported us the practice of Baptism for the dead
" Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" (1 Cor. 15:29)
Baptism is mandatory for Salvation (Mark 16:16; John 3:5; Rom. 6:3-7; Acts 2:38; Gal. 3:27). God is just (Psa. 89:14), and wants all men to be saved (Ezek. 18:23; Mat. 23:37; 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9). so God provided a way for those who have not heard or accepted the gospel while they are alive so they can be saved. This is the baptism for the dead, which is practiced by early Christians (1 Cor. 15:29).
4. On the plurality of gods
..."Latter-day Saints" believe that there are many Gods?
The Church of Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that there is an infinite number of gods:
"Three separate personages-Father, Son, and Holy Ghost-comprise the Godhead. As each of these persons is a God, it is evident, from this standpoint alone, that a plurality of Gods exists" but in addition there is an infinite number of holy personages, drawn from worlds without number, who have passed on to exaltation and are thus gods" (Mormon Doctrine. p. 576-577, emphasis ours)
But Christ taught that there is only one true God, the Father in heaven, Who declared there is no other God besides Him:
"After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: "Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. (Jn. 17:1,3, New International Version, emphasis ours)
"I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God" (Is. 45:5, Ibid, emphasis ours)
For I testify unto every man that hears the words of the prophecy of this book, If anyone shall add unto these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book: And if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
(Revelation 22:18-19, NKJV)
On John 17:3
The INCm is known for their attack against the deity of Jesus Christ. they frequently use John 17:3 as a proof text but they took out the context of the verse. the verse reads with context :
" These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the wrld was." (John 17:1-5)
The context of the 17th chapter of John is about Jesus giving the intercessory prayer. Jesus here is in an incarnate state. verse 1 states Jesus asking Heavenly Father to give back the glory that he had and verse 3-5 states that Jesus possessed a glory at the side of the Father before the world was created.
On Isaiah 45:5
The verse is a screed to forbid idol worship. Unitarians famously quote the passages in Isaiah 44-66, commonly referred to by scholars as a polemic against the pagan nations, to stress God’s singularity, but they miss the point of the polemic: The prophet is not so much concerned about ontology as He is about exclusive worship to Jehovah/Yahweh. He is emphasizing that only Yahweh is worthy of worship, and is engaging in a polemic against syncretism. Read Isaiah 44 and 45, and not particularly 43:12, where God says, “I have declared and saved, I have proclaimed and there was no foreign gods among you.” God, through the prophet Isaiah, is attacking idolatry. The true God, Jehovah/Yahweh, is being contrasted with the false gods of the surrounding nations. To use this passage as through Isaiah was dealing with the nature of God is absolutely absurd.
Why Quote Revelations 22:18-19 as a proof text against the plurality of gods?
Weird. the verse doesn't have any connection to the premise.
Indeed, the Bible reports about the plurality of gods
We have this belief called Monolatry or Kingship Monotheism. this is the worship of one God without denying the existence of other inferior gods. this is present in Judaism and Early Christianity like some verses state :
" 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: " (Deut. 10:17)
" 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,] " (Josh. 22:22)
" O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth for ever. " (Psa. 136:2)
" 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. 2:47)
" 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. " (Dan. 11:36)
" For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, [as there be gods many, and lords many,] But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. " (1 Cor. 8:5-6)
The Plurality of the Gods in the Bible
The Bible affirms the ontological existence of plural gods. Firstly, do note that in Latter-day Saint theology, “God” is a multivalent term, something Trinitarianism cannot allow when speaking of (true) divinities. That this is the Christological model of “Biblical Christianity” can be seen in many places, such as Heb 1:8-9:
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast love righteousness, and hated iniquity, therefore, God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness, above thy fellows.
This is an important pericope for many reasons—this is one of only a few places in the New Testament where Jesus has the term "God" (Greek: θεος) predicated upon him (others would include John 20:28 and probably, based on grammar, Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1], and yet, post-ascension, Jesus is differentiated, not simply from the person of the Father (ambiguously tolerated in Trinitarianism), but a differentiation from God (literally, the God [ο θεος]), something not tolerated in Trinitarianism. This can be further seen in the fact that this is a "midrash" of Psa 45:6-7, a royal coronation text for the Davidic King, of whom Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment (cf. 2 Sam 7). Both the Hebrew and the Greek LXX predicates "God" upon the king, and yet, there is a God (in the case of Jesus, God the Father) above him. The LXX reads the same as Hebrews; the Hebrew literally reads "elohim, your elohim" (alt. "God, your God" [ אֱלֹהִ֣ים אֱ֭לֹהֶיךָ (elohim eloheyka)].
That there is a "plurality of Gods" can be seen in a variety of texts, such as Deut 32:7-9 from the Dead Sea Scrolls, which places Yawheh as one of the Gods to whom jurisdiction of a nation is given and even in the book of Genesis (20:13), where elohim is coupled with a verb in the plural, meaning plural gods (elohim is irregular in Hebrew; it has a plural ending, but when coupled with a verb in the single person, it means "One G/god"; however, when coupled with a verb in the plural [as in Psa 82:6] means [plural] G/gods).
In Gen 20:13, the Hebrew reads (followed by my transliteration and translation of the text in red):
וַיְהִ֞י כַּאֲשֶׁ֧ר הִתְע֣וּ אֹתִ֗י אֱלֹהִים֘ מִבֵּ֣ית אָבִי֒ וָאֹמַ֣ר לָ֔הּ זֶ֣ה חַסְדֵּ֔ךְ אֲשֶׁ֥ר תַּעֲשִׂ֖י עִמָּדִ֑י אֶ֤ל כָּל־הַמָּקוֹם֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר נָב֣וֹא שָׁ֔מָּה אִמְרִי־לִ֖י אָחִ֥י הֽוּא׃
Wyhy k'sr ht'w 'ty 'lhym mbbyt 'by ...
And it came to pass when (the) Gods caused me to wander from my father's house...
Another way to render the pertinent phrase would be, "And it came to pass when (the) Gods caused me to wander from my father's house . . ."
Not only is this consistent with LDS theology, but also supports the creation story in the Book of Abraham. If it had been the singular 'God', it would have been ht'h 'lhym rather than the plural ht'w 'lhym, consistent with the creation account of the Book of Abraham (Abraham 4:1ff) and LDS theology, though it blows strict forms of monotheism (whether Unitarian or creedal Trinitarian) out of the water. If one wants to see the exegetical gymnastics Trinitarians have to engage in to play-down the theological importance of this verse, see this post discussing the NET’s comment on Gen 20:13.
Another key text is that of 2 Kgs 3:27:
Then he [Mesha] took his firstborn son who was to succeed him, and offered him as a burnt offering on the wall. And great wrath came upon Israel, so they withdrew from him and returned to their own land. (NRSV)
Commenting on this passage, one LDS scholar wrote:
We know from epigraphic and archaeological evidence that each nation state had its own god. For example, Milcom was the god of Ammon, Chemosh was the god of Moab, Qos was the god of Edom and Yahweh was the god of Israel. Indeed, according to 2 Kings 3:26-27, the king of Moab was motivated by the wrath of Chemosh to turn against Israel by sacrificing his son to Chemosh. t this point, Israel's success against Moab faltered and Israel was defeated. This text actually grants power to a foreign god to inspire humans and change the course of history for God's chosen people. It is difficult to see the writer(s) of this passage as believing that Chemosh was not real, for what isn't real cannot have such causal effects in the history of the world. The Ugaritic background of this concept seems evident, for El fathered seventy sons and thereby established the number of the sons of El or sons of God. (Blake T. Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought, vol. 3: Of God and Gods [Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2008], 51-52)
With respect to Deut 32:7-9, the NRSV (1989) of this pericope reads:
Remember the days of old, consider the years long past; ask your father and he will inform you, Your elders will tell you. When the Most High gave nations their homes and set the divisions of man, he fixed the boundaries of peoples in relation to Israel's numbers. For the Lord's portion is his people, Jacob his own allotment.
One will note that this differs from the KJV; the Mastoretic Text (MT) underlying the KJV OT reads "sons of Adam/Man," while the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest text of the book of Deuteronomy, has the reading "sons of god" (the Hebrew beni-elim) or, as Ancient Near Eastern scholars understand the term, "gods."
In the second edition of The Jewish Study Bible (Oxford University Press, 2014), we read the following note on page 419:
Most High, or “Elyon,” is a formal title of El, the senior god who presided over the divine council in the Ugaritic literature of ancient Canaan. The reference thus invokes, as do other biblical texts, the Near Eastern convention of a pantheon of gods ruled by the chief deity (Pss. 82:1; 89:6-8). Israelite authors regularly applied El’s title to Israel’s God (Gen. 14:18-22; Num. 24:16; Pss. 46:5; 47:3). [with reference to the variant in the DSS “number of the gods”] makes more sense. Here, the idea is that the chief god allocates the nations to lesser deities in the pantheon. (A post-biblical notion that seventy angels are in charge of the world’s seventy nations echoes this idea.) Almost certainly, the unintelligible reading of the MT represents a “correction” of the original text (whereby God presides over other gods) to make it conform to the later standard of pure monotheism: There are no other gods! The polytheistic imagery of the divine council is also deleted in the Heb at 32:42; 33:2-3, 7.
Other texts could be discussed, such as 1 Cor 8:4-6, which sums up the LDS perspective rather well--there is, to us, One God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ (cf. Deut 6:4; Eph 4:5-6), but such does not preclude other beings who can correctly be called "god" having true existence and being in the midst of God--in fact, such is required by the biblical data when one takes a pan-canonical approach to theology and the Bible (just as one example, take Psa 29:1 "A psalm of David. Ascribe to the Lord, o divine beings [Heb: בְּנֵ֣י אֵלִ֑ים beni-elim], ascribe to the Lord glory and strength" [1985 Tanakh, Jewish Publications Society]).Both the Latter-day Saint and biblical understanding of this issue can be best summed up in the as "kingship monotheism":
Kingship MonotheismThere are many gods, but all of the gods are subordinate to a Most High God to whom the gods give ultimate honour and glory and without whose authority and approval they do not act in relation to the world. (Blake Ostler, Of God and Gods [Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2008], p. 43).
Also, logically, one has to conclude a plurality of Gods, unless one wishes to explicitly reject at least one of premises a-c from the following:
A. There are at least three divine persons.
B. Every divine person is God
C. If every a = b, there cannot be fewer B's than A's
D. Conclusion: There are at least three Gods.
On Psa 82:6, perhaps one of the most popular texts Latter-day Saints cite in favour of this doctrine, consider the following comments from three Evangelical Protestant scholars in a recent commentary:
Psalm 82: King of the Gods Psalm 82 places the modern reader in a very unfamiliar world. Modern thinkers hold to a monotheistic theology, meaning there is only one god and the gods of others simply do not exist. Ancient Israel did not have the same definition of monotheism. Indeed, for them not only did other gods exist, but these gods were active in the world. This psalm gives us a window on the assembly of the gods, a place where the gods are gathered to make decisions about the world. This council is part of the greater ancient Near Eastern mythology and would be a familiar image to ancient Israelites. A multitude of texts demonstrate this belief, e.g. Exod. 20:3-6; Deut. 4:15-20; josh. 24:14-15. In addition, many prophetic texts extol the people to love God alone and not go after other gods, e.g., Jer. 8:19; Hos. 11:2. In later texts, the theology seems to move more toward an exclusive monotheism; see. Isa. 41:21-24 . . . Verses 6-7 place the gods on equal footing with the humans. They have lost their immortality, hence their god status. This ability for the Go of Israel to demote the others speaks of the power of the king of the council. The king alone can control all of the other gods. This divine trial also demonstrates the fairness of Israel’s god. This god is not capricious, but sentences the other gods for their refusal to act in ways that reflect the values of God’s kingdom . . . [Psalm 89:5-8] set the state in the heavenly council. In vv.5 and 8, God is praised by the heavens for God’s faithfulness, and this certainly continues the theme of vv.1-4 while also broadening God’s faithfulness to the whole world. The questions in v.6 are rhetorical, just as in Isa. 40:18 and Pss. 18:31 and 77:13, followed by the declaration of God’s clear supremacy among the gods (v.7). God is not only the God of Israel but is the chief god of the council, and all others bow before the Lord. [2] See 1 Kgs. 22:19-23; Job 1:6-12; Zech. 1:7-17. See Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, pp. 177-90. The Gilgamesh Epic is a story that concerns Gilgamesh’s quest for immortality that will make him a god, indicating the importance of immortality in ancient myth. (Nancy Declaissé-Walford, Rolf A. Jacobson, and Beth Laneel Tanner, The Book of Psalms [New International Old Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2014], 641, 642, 680).
One could go on and on, but the evidence from sound biblical scholarship and exegesis supports Joseph Smith's teachings on a plurality of Gods.
http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2016/10/refuting-ron-den-boer.html
In Conclusion
Manaloist have a pretty suspicious way of teaching (like switching bible versions for every single verse), and a poor interpretation of the Bible. they have no knowledge of LDS Theology and keep misrepresenting and misinterpreteting the scriptures.
