Crazy take given that Moses and Elijah spoke to Peter, James, John, amd Jesus in Luke 9.30-32. "The MAN Gabriel" (Dan 9.21) spoke to Daniel. Enoch talked to people. The Founders approached Wilford Woodruff not the other way around. The only Mormons sent to speak to the dead are dead Mormons who preach the Gospel to spirits in prison (1 Peter 3.18-21; 4.6).

You claimed that the divine nature of God never suffered for man on the Cross but remained impossible by nature unaffected by human suffering. You claimed that the divine nature of God never had a body, nor died for man, but remained incorporeal by nature all throughout the incarnation. You've only convinced me more than ever that you, sir, are a Docetist and a Nestorian. You haven't said anything to differentiate yourself from those heretical positions.

You literally said the divine nature never became human by nature, I.e., only the man part of Jesus was born and suffered and died for us while the God part of Jesus was not born and did not suffer and did not die for man! So your reading God in His divine nature did not suffer for man on the cross but only God’s human nature suffered for man on the cross while God’s divine nature remained completely unaffected and unmoved and perfectly impassible! Only Origen and Basil of Caesarea had humility enough to admit that the Father is passable since He is moved by the suffering of love for His children! How sick the Islamic/Nestorian God the Son whose divine essence refuses to become human and remains forever aloof and unmoved in His divine nature from human suffering!

Good one. I prove Chalcedon is Nestorian LIKE ALL MONOPHYSITES CLAIM and you accuse me of repeating MORMON talking points. 🤡 Could it be that the Monophysites created the biggest schism in Church history over Chalcedon because they’re right that it teaches Nestorianism and Islam that the human nature in Jesus is not God by nature?

Check out this gem. ⬇️ This anti-Mormon claimed Mormonism only spreads in uneducated communities like Islam... Even though the average Mormon IQ (106) is 25 points higher than average Muslim IQ (81)! For the record 106 is the average IQ in China. Utah is always top 10 of all States in America with Bachelor Degrees per capita and top 3 of all states with most foreign languages spoken per capita. The comment below is the typical strawman argumentation that Mormons get from "low IQ take" accounts every day. We deserve better opponents than @johndehlin or @PastorMark! 🤡 @ThoughtfulSaint @Mormonger @ScottAlanGordon @PTSPentax @WardRadioShow @SamShamoun @maklelan

Shame on you for adopting Muslim argument against the incarnation of God! First you adopt Nestorianism by claiming the Logos was not made flesh by nature but only by grace. Now you adopt Islam bu claiming that God did not become a Man in Christ! Why would all these verses you cite preclude the Father from being a Man but not preclude the Son being a Man (1 Cor 15.29; Hos 11.9; Num 23.19)? Jews and Muslims cite the same verses against Christians that you cite against Mormons. Apparently you’re unaware that your interpretation of those verses contradicts that whole New Testament that God the Son was made man. Mormons interpret these verse the same way Christians interpret these verses when refuting Muslims. Jesus the man is not a liar like other men and transcends humans at the same time He is homoousios with humans. Now apply the same explanation to your own objection. How hypocritical to use a Muslim argument against the incarnation of God the Son against me. Are you Muslim? If you claim that God is unborn (the Father can’t be begotten) and doesn’t beget a Son (the Son can’t beget God), I guess you do worship Allah.

Why would all these verses you cite preclude the Father from being a Man but not preclude the Son being a Man (1 Cor 15.29; Hos 11.9; Num 23.19)? Jews and Muslims cite the same verses against Christians that you cite against Mormons. Apparently you’re unaware that your interpretation of those verses contradicts that whole New Testament that God the Son was made man. Mormons interpret these verse the same way Christians interpret these verses when refuting Muslims. Jesus the man is not a liar like other men and transcends humans at the same time He is homoousios with humans. Now apply the same explanation to your own objection. How hypocritical to use a Muslim argument against the incarnation of God the Son against me. Are you Muslim? If you claim that God is unborn (the Father can’t be begotten) and doesn’t beget a Son (the Son can’t beget God), I guess you do worship Allah.

Chalcedon is Nestorian. That’s why the Monophysites who rejected Chalcedon carried out the greatest Schism in the history of the Church. You can’t bring yourself to say that God was made flesh or God was made man, even though the Bible says it and ALL early Christians said it. If “the Logos was” (John 1.1) cannot be identical to “the Logos WAS MADE” (John 1.14) as ‘was’ connotes an uncreated nature and ‘was made’ connotes a created nature, and yet the connection between the uncreated and the created is that ‘the LOGOS HIMSELF was MADE FLESH’ (John 1.14). You say ‘made flesh’ doesn’t mean conversion into flesh. It actually means conversion into flesh and nothing else. ‘He WAS MADE in things LIKE HIS BROTHERS. Even as they partook of flesh and blood, He LIKEWISE partook of the same’ (Heb 2.14.17). So either His brothers are not converted into flesh and the Son is not converted into flesh, or the Son is converted into flesh just like His brothers are converted into flesh. We see that Jesus was ‘MADE FLESH’ (John 1.14) ‘just LIKE His brothers’ (Heb 2.14) and since ‘born of flesh IS FLESH’ (John 3.6) ‘just like His brothers’ (Heb 2.17), JUST LIKE Jesus’ brothers ‘rise from the dead just like their Brother’ (Rom 8.29; 1 Cor 6.14; Phil 3.21; 2 Cor 5.14)! The identify is clear in Chalcedon since Jesus is homoousios with God and homouisios with humanity SIMULTANEOUSLY. The only logical conclusion, and the conclusion of the whole early Church, is that GOD BECAME MAN BY NATURE SO THAT MAN MIGHT BECOME GOD BY NATURE. You may think that Hillary and Irenaeus were the only two fathers to use explicit formula like that. But they aren’t! Even Cappadocians so “God became man to the same extent man may become God!” Clearly he understood the belief of the whole pre-Nicene Church and he was unwilling to throw that tradition out for Athanasius’ new Trinity dogma or for a then non existent Chalcedonian compromise with Nestorius.

I predict he will delete his comment that I quote tweeted up above. So here it is. ⏬️

@thatgoythere True. Our founder Jesus was arrested for treason (John 18.30,33; 19.12-19). Paul was also arrested on charges of treason (Acts 24.5,16). Isaiah and Jeremiah were also arrested on charges of treason. So was Michaiah. Joseph was taken to court a dozen times and not once convicted of a crime. But I'm sure the 160 armed men in black face who assassinated Joseph must have been convinced they had a good case against Joseph in Court. 🤡

You gave literally no evidence against my position. So ceteris paribus (all things being equal) the simplest explanation is true. This isn’t brain surgery. Jesus said, “except a man be born again of water and of Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God. After that Jesus baptized disciples in water” (John 3.5,22-24; 1 Peter 3.18-21; 4.6; 1 Cor 15.11,29). “Arise, be baptized and wash away your sins” (Acts 22.16; 2.38-41; 19.1-6; Titus 3.5; Eph 5.26; MK 1.4; Lk 3.3). ALL early Christians took “born of water” in John 3.5 as a clear reference to the necessity of water baptism to be saved. In this EARLY CHRISTIAN CONTEXT it makes perfect sense why the Apostles practiced baptism for the dead. Some mention the thief on the cross but they forget that the text doesn’t mention his baptismal status, and it doesn’t matter anyway because “they” the Apostles (1 Cor 15.11) practiced vicarious Baptism for the dead (1 Cor 15.29). “The recognition of the sacramental in Paul has become, if possible, even more difficult for theological science than the physico-realistic character of the having died with Christ.  That Paul should have regarded Baptism and Lord’s Supper as inherently efficacious acts, and redemption as being bound up with them, seems to us inconsistent with the deep spirituality which is elsewhere the shining characteristic of his religion.  What tribulation the sacreamental mysticism of Paul still has in store for theology becomes evident in Deissmann.  He takes the desperate course of denying its recognition.  “I hold it,” he says, “ to be untrue, that for Paul baptism is the way of attaining to Christ.  There are pasages which, taken in isolation, can be alleged in favour of this view, but there can be no doubt that it is more correct to say: Baptism does not operate but only seals the fellowship with Christ.” [19]  Of such fine distinctions Paul knows nothing.  He simply asserts that it is with Baptism that the being-in Christ and the dying and rising again have their beginning.  He who is baptized into Christ is united in one corporeity with Him and the other Elect who are “in Christ” (Gal. iii.27-28), and undergoes with Him His dying and rising again (Rom. vi. 3-4).  The effect of Baptism is thought of so objectively that some in Corinth caused themselves to be baptized for the dead, in order that through this Baptism by proxy they might share in the benefits of the sacrament.  Far from combating such a view as superstitious, Paul uses it as an argument against those who cast doubt upon the ressurection. (I Cor. xv. 29)  It is noteworthy that Deissmann in his denial of the fundamental significance of the sacraments in Paul does not deal with this recalcitrant passage.  The idea that it is only through a believing self-surrender to absorption in Christ that the Elect can bring about the mystical fellowship with Him is quite outside of Paul’s horizon.  He assumes as self-evident that a grafting into Christ takes place in Baptism and is bound up with this ceremonial act.  [30]  That is why he does not import into his mysticism the Hellenistic idea of deification.  The believer does not become Christ, but is only taken up into His being. {pg. 29, 30, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, Albert Schweitzer, The Macmillan Company, New York, New York.}

Joseph Smith repeatedly calls John the Baptist “an Elijah” and “an Elias”, showing he clearly understood the two names as interchangeable titles for a Restorer. It’s more interesting that Joseph identified the Archangel Michael as Adam and “the man Gabriel” (Daniel 9.21) as Noah. Surely appropriate for the Captain of all the Angels of heaven (Rev 12.7, or One like God in Dan 12.1 & Gen 1.26 & 3.22 & 5.3). Funny how most Christians still haven’t figured out that the disciple whom Jesus loved is one person with two names: Lazarus (John 11.4-5,36; 12.2: 13.23-26) and John the Beloved (John 21.24)! Lazarus is John and John is Lazarus. Matt 17.11-12 & Luke 1.17 apply the title ELIJAH (ELIAS) to multiple persons who came over a thousand years after Elijah. Are you really shocked someone had the same name before Elijah? Logically it makes sense to call the prior Elijah “Elias” to differentiate him from the later Elijah of the same name. Some think Malachi is Elijah since “Malachi” in Hebrew just means My Angel or My Messenger, and Elijah is the Messenger of the Covenant who restores keys and prepares the way before the Messiah.

Jesus and Muhammad are the two most popular names in the world but you claim Prophets don't share names with others? Unsurprisingly, Jesus was named after the greatest Prophet after Moses (Joshua).

Clown. Matthew 17 calls Elijah "Elias". Does that mean Elijah was given a Greek name in his own day? Raymond Brown's excellent non-Mormon book THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN and he breaks down how the first mention of the SINGULAR "disciple whom Jesus loved" is Lazarus (John 11.4,36; 12.2; 13.20-24) and yet the end of John says "the disciple whom Jesus loved wrote these things you're reading" (John 21.24) .it's difficult to imagine a more obvious identification of the two since Lazarus is the ONLY "disciple whom Jesus loved" mentioned earlier in the text.

You claim on Heb 1.2 is even more incoherent than I originally thought. You claim that "God appointed His Son the HEIR OF ALL THINGS" (Hebrews 1.2) means that the human nature of Jesus inherited all things from the divine nature of Jesus, thus the same person inherited all things from Himself. This, yoir claim, is much more absurd than the Biblical claim that "THE FATHER [NOT God the Son] has GIVEN ALL THINGS INTO THE HANDS OF THE SON" (John 3.35). Thus, you ignore the Biblical view that the Father gave all things to the Son in both His divine and human natures, and absurdly claim that the divine nature of the Son gave all things to Himself in His own human nature.

"2. Ibn Ezra and “cut/divide”
does note a “cut” sense and discusses construct possibilities. He is one medieval commentator. He does not settle the meaning of bārāʾ in Gen 1 against the rest of the canon. The verb in Qal with God as subject, at the head of the creation account, with no prior independent material named, is not reduced to “cutting a boundary” in pre-existing cosmic stuff." You're only making my case. The prior materials God uses in His specific creative acts on the second and third da to create heaven and earth (Gensis 1.6-10) are specifically mentioned at the beginning of Genesis: "In the beginning of God's creation of heaven and earth, the EARTH WAS desolate and uninhabited, DARKNESS covered the face of the earth [i.e., invisible earth seen in Heb 11.3], the WATERS covered TEHOM, and the breath of God hovered over WATERS" (Genesis 1.2). Note Genesis 1.1-2 does not say where these elements came from. It just days "the earth was and waters etc....", and then describes how God cuts and divides these already existing elements to make heaven and earth on days two and three in Genesis 1.6-10. "Later Jewish and Christian readers have disagreed on the precise force; the absolute beginning reading is not thereby eliminated." Not really. I just quoted Rashi and Ibn Ezra, the two greatest Hebrew linguists of the Middle Ages, making it clear that lexically bara means "to cut" and "bereshit" in construct form means "in the beginning of". If they dont know what the Hebrew means, no one does. Gerhard May in CREATIO EX NIHILO demonstrates that creatio ex nihilo did not come from Judaism but from two Gnostic heretics Basilides & Tatian. Neither a Jew. It wasn't til Saadia in the 10th century AD that Rabbinic Jews slowly began developing their own creatio ex nihilo. This was under the influence of Muslim Kalam or Mutakalimun. However, experts among the Rabbis always conceded that Jewish tradition had always taught creatio ex materia aka world formation. Maimonides in his esoteric position in Guide 2.25-26 admits that Rabbinic tradition (Rabbi Eleazar said the earth was made out of snow under the Throne of Glory) is consistent with Plato's concept of creation as world formation (same in Justin Martyr, Apology i.10; i.59; Wisdom of Solomon 11.7, 2 Peter 3.5). He even defends the theoretical compatibility of the Torah with Aristotle's view of the universe as rotated from eternity without beginning or end like a watch eternally moving without a watchmaker (Guide 2.25). "Treating Rashi or Ibn Ezra as the final word over that broader witness is special pleading." Yes, when looking for the proper Hebrew lexical meaning and proper grammar of a text whose "Hebrew original" is not controverted, I am always going to consult the native Hebrew speakers first. Jerome and Origen follow the same methodology. "4. “The Bible never calls God uncreated”
Correct that the exact phrase is not there. Irrelevant to the point. Scripture repeatedly presents God as the one who alone is eternal, who brings everything else into being by His word, and who is not Himself among the things that came into being (Isa 40–48; John 1:1–3; Col 1:16–17; Heb 11:3; Rom 4:17). The Creator–creature distinction is biblical whether or not the precise Greek-derived term “uncreated” appears." Yoir claim is asily falsifiable. "Yahweh CREATED ME the Beginning of His way before His works of old" (Prov 8.22), "the Firstborn of every creature...the first in all things, the Beginning" (Col 1.15; Sirach 24.2-14), "the Beginning of the creation of God" (Rev 3.14; Heb 3.1-2). Mormons agree "in the beginning the Logos WAS" (John 1.1) puts the Logos originally in the category of UNMADE THINGS, but later "and the Logos WAS MADE FLESH" (John 1.14) puts the Logos unambiguously in the category of "MADE THINGS". Just because the Logos was originally unmade, that doesn't mean He is unmade in His organized incarnate form. Nicenes agree Jesus' soul and body are both created.

The original Hebrew of the Bible had NO VOWELS. Masoretes ADDED VOWELS IN 1000 A.D.! The verb bara (SW 1254) is used precisely the same of God's action (Gen 1.1) and of human action (Jer 17.15,18; Ezek 21.19,30). Ibn Ezra, another native speaking HEBREW EXPERT, explains that the Hebrew bara means 'to cut' or 'divide' a boundary, a fact that us clear from Genesis 1.5-10 where creation is always described as cutting or dividing prior materials clear from Ven 1.2 where earth, water, dark, and breath are primal elements that just 'was'. ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● It's funny a Christian telling Rashi a native speaking Jew and world leading expert in Hebrew that he doesn't know how to translate Hebrew. 🤡 'Be- resheit' "in the beginning of" found in Gen 1.1 is only found elsewhere in the Bible in Jer 26.1 (27.1; 28.1; 49.34) where 'be resheit' must be translated, "in the beginning of (the reign of the king)". There is literally nothing grammatically to prevent taking Genesis 1.1 the way Jews themselves insist it must be translated and how every English Translator translates "bereshit" elsewhere where it is used in an identical way to mean "the beginning OF" the reign of so and so king. ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● The Bible never explicitly calls God "uncreated" or "unborn". Athansius pointed this out to Arius in order to excuse his own use of unBiblical language. However, Athanasius should have seen that the omission of "uncreated" or "unbegotten" as descriptors for God is not an oversight on God's part, an oversight that both Arius and Athansius think they have to "fix" by putting out their puny hands to steady the Ark and rewrite the Bible... Because this OMISSION proves that the whole UNCREATED-CREATED distinction is not Bible theology or Hebrew doctrine but is Greek theology and Gnostic dogma.