NameIess

I got today's Cosmeredle in 5 tries! Try and beat me at https://cosmeredle.net/

Jesus prays that the church would have the same unity with one another as He has with God the Father. He prays that God the Father would love the church just as he loves Jesus the son. Neither of those are a statement that all humans are fully God as Jesus is. Without any context this prayer could be read that way, but such a reading is not consistent with the rest of the scriptures. Even in the prayer itself there are questions you would have to answer. For example: Why would Jesus want his followers to see His personal glory (glory given by God the Father, which is another question you'd have to answer) if they also are fully God? Should he not pray that they would see the glory in themselves? Here's a question: How accurate a retelling of Jesus' life do you think the gospels give? How accurate are the events described in the Bible as a whole?

Feel good about this one.

Jesus is praying that Christians will be united with one another so that the world will see that unity and know the truth of the gospel.

I believe the Bible is infallibly true and that contradicts the Bible, so it is an incorrect way of thinking about God.

The heresy there would be believing that Jesus was divested of Godhood when he became human. Jesus is fully man, but also fully God.

I think the difference lies in that saying 'Jesus is God' is an part of the affirmation of the Trinity. Jesus is God, the Father is God, the Holy Spirit is God. They're all God, (and there's only one God) but they are three separate persons. Saying 'God is Jesus' can be interpreted in a couple different ways that reject the trinity. It could be saying that Jesus is the sole person in the Godhead, or it could mean that Jesus is just a form of God, or it could be saying something else like that. Perhaps some more context about the book's concept of radical Christianity would help pin down the exact difference. Jesus claimed to be God, not a prophet. But yes, He did reveal a new revelation, and the writers of the New Testament did write what at the time would've been new inspired words of God. What I meant was that Christian groups split off from one another not because someone revealed new revelations from God, but because they disagreed on theology and interpretation of the Bible. I wasn't aware of the origins of the Seventh Day Adventists. That does throw a wrench in my point, although it doesn't look like she contradicted any essential doctrines. (although the group did reject the trinity initially). Yes, I would like to see that when you do it.

I got today's Cosmeredle in 4 tries! Try and beat me at https://cosmeredle.net/

Yes. I don’t believe that holding a wrong belief about eternity such as universalism will damn a Christian. I guess the point I’m trying to make is that there are a multitude of serious differences between the LDS faith and those I would term as Christian beyond the rejection of the Trinity. That’s the easiest to point to because holding different beliefs about the identity of God is pretty much what sets apart religions. I think also that there’s a point to be made about the source of the beliefs. Protestants differ between ourselves on how to interpret the Bible, and we disagree with Catholics/Eastern Orthodox on the authority given to the church and tradition, but as far as I’m aware no group among those was begun by a man claiming to be a prophet revealing a supposed new revelation from God. edit because I forgot to include this: That verse from John doesn’t seem to be supporting multiple heavenly kingdoms. It seems more easily interpreted as Jesus assuring his disciples that there will be a place for them in heaven.

I believe the third heaven refers to the heaven where God is, as opposed to the sky where birds are (first heaven) or space where the stars are (second heaven). Seems a better explanation than Paul referring to multiple heavenly kingdoms as an aside, a concept never expanded on anywhere in the Bible. And I do think universalism is wrong. Evil cannot exist in God’s presence and so those who reject Jesus’ sacrifice will be eternally cast out of His presence. I do understand why Christians would want to believe Universalism, and I don’t think it’s irrational to hope that many more people will be saved than it appears in this world, but I don’t think we have any indication of universalism in the Bible.

Interesting. For the record, I do not see human hate as justice, nor do I try to see honest questions as attacks. (If you meant this depiction of hell to be your personal experience of it, not to be generalized, then I apologize. But if it is generalized, then I don’t think I fit into it) I don’t believe in purgatory, no. But while purgatory is a difference, both Catholics and Protestants agree that the righteous in Christ go to heaven and the sinners go to hell, even if we disagree on how long it’ll take to get there. Your beliefs on the final destination are very different.

I would think that reading the Bible with any preconceived notion of what God should be like would pollute the metaphorical system. And I would posit that God as the Lord is clear in the Bible. I don't believe the Bible needs any amending, nor do I see any reason to believe any amendments to what I believe is infallible, but I would not call you a demon for it. As for blasphemy, it's no less or more blasphemy than you've said already. Ah, I should've elaborated more. Actually my earlier post is straight-up inaccurate. When I said, "although there is more to salvation than works" I should've said that salvation is not based on works. I agree that the second is better, for the first is doing good works out of hope for personal gain. But you do not gain salvation based on works. I am already condemned by the very parable I mentioned, not to mention any of the other laws I have broken. I have certainly not helped the helpless as much as I could have. But in Christ I have salvation apart from good works. I am commanded to do good works, but my salvation is not based on doing them. I cannot 'earn' salvation. Christ earned it for me on the cross. I think that you mistake human nature if you think there can be salvation of this world. We humans are evil. The root of evil is not money or any social structure. It is me and you and every human in this world. Only in Christ is there redemption, and only when He returns to make new Heaven and Earth will that evil finally be healed. I hope you do not see me as conspiring against you. I want nothing more or less for you than that you should know Christ as I do, a God who willingly became flesh, suffered, died, and rose again to save you from your sins. What's the point in categorizing the kinds of people in the three kingdoms if one can change their destination in the afterlife? (also, speaking back to our earlier debate, I'd say the views on the afterlife are a very major distinction between LDS and Protestant/Catholic/Orthodox Christians)