Mark Stephens

@jew_jacob2005 @xc_iles Also you calling me disingenuous is hilarious considering you wouldn’t answer questions and actually said stop asking me questions.

@MarkStephevsbm @xc_iles Thats disingenuous considering Ive been using your sources

///// LDS apologist: • Creatio ex nihilo is “bad Greek philosophy” • Creatio ex materia is authentic Hebraism ///// History: • Creatio ex nihilo, as classically articulated, is the Patristic departure from “bad Greek philosophy” • Creatio ex materia is the Greek (and ancient near eastern) default. If you’re wondering why there’s so much pushback on your narrative, it is because it is manifestly false, and is either a cope or a grift (or both) issued for dissemination by its primary expositors.

@jew_jacob2005 @JayDyer Also your interpretation of d&c is laughable.

@MarkStephevsbm @JayDyer Theres literally no questions. U just accused me of using AI and different websites even though Im using your religion’s sources. Btw theres no essence energy distinction nor homoousia in Mormonism, so ur lying x.com/jew_jacob2005/…

please come debate lol twitter.com/i/spaces/1vJpP…

@jew_jacob2005 @JayDyer Yah and Hebrews isn’t talking about eed. Yes I’m accusing you because it’s obvious Ok I’ll ask the same question. Would god want you to save a toddler who was drowning?

@jew_jacob2005 @xc_iles I meant in that verse

@MarkStephevsbm @xc_iles Theres no essence energy distinction in Mormonism, what are you talking about?

@jew_jacob2005 @JayDyer I would debate but you won’t answer any questions

@JayDyer Come debate

@jew_jacob2005 @xc_iles Sorry everything in that verse is entirely compatible with Mormonism

@MarkStephevsbm @xc_iles “Being The Radiance of his Glory” which is EED and “hypostaseos” which means Ousia or essence, which is homoousia

@jew_jacob2005 @xc_iles Yah that you found on a anti Mormon site that removes it from context

@jew_jacob2005 @xc_iles Everything you have said is a subjective interpretation you have subjectively decided to choose. Yah it’s easy to tell when someone has read an article by an anti Mormon or watched an anti Mormon YouTube video. You have.

@MarkStephevsbm @xc_iles Subjectively deciding doesnt mean anything. Btw the website is Jacob Jew’s mind dot com

@jew_jacob2005 @xc_iles Homoousia isn’t in the bible

@MarkStephevsbm @xc_iles Hebrews 1:3 which is intertwined with this as well, the essence energies distinction and homoousia are foundational to the Trinity

@jew_jacob2005 @xc_iles 1 i can decide your interpretation is incorrect 2 your interpretation is incorrect 3 if its not chat GPT what website are you getting this from?

@MarkStephevsbm @xc_iles Its not chat gpt, and btw if God is revealing this stuff, which your prophets say he is indeed, rhen you are to adhere to all of it, you cant pick and choose which is right and which you feel is wrong

@jew_jacob2005 @xc_iles Your pre assuming the trinity which isn’t taught anywhere in the bible.

@MarkStephevsbm @xc_iles John 17:5 and John 17:22

@jew_jacob2005 @xc_iles Holy crap dude stop trying to explain my own theology to me. I understand it better than you and chat gpt. Again our prophets have at times agreed with you and at other times disagreed with you. None of this is doctrine.

@MarkStephevsbm @xc_iles Like it says in Alma 42:13 and verse 22, God is in alignment with these principles that are external to him. It would be akin to following the example set by a god in Greek mythology churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptur…

@jew_jacob2005 @xc_iles Where

@MarkStephevsbm @xc_iles The participation in the energies are in John 17, so this is false

@jew_jacob2005 @xc_iles When does he talk about the energy’s? That idea evolved later.

@MarkStephevsbm @xc_iles Thats referring to the participation in the energies, not that we become divine ourselves like in your view

@jew_jacob2005 @xc_iles When Joseph makes that same point he compares the fathers mortality to Christs. Whom we believe was eternally god. So you’re incorrect.

@MarkStephevsbm @xc_iles I never said it was an infinite regress, just that God at one point was not always divine. “As man now is, God once was: “As God now is, man may be.” But from what we see is your view concludes this is theosis, which is acheived by adhering to the eternal law/principles

@jew_jacob2005 @xc_iles "Or how shall man pass into God, unless God has [first] passed into man?" (Irenaeus, ca. 180, Against Heresies 4:33:4, in Ante-Nicene Fathers 1:507, brackets in original)

@MarkStephevsbm @xc_iles churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/t…

@jew_jacob2005 @xc_iles Ok how do you know that? Bonus question what did Gordon b hinckley say about this?

@MarkStephevsbm @xc_iles Thats not referring to the incarnation, thats the soteriology divinely revealed to him the Grand destiny, as in the origin of God and our common goal in life

@jew_jacob2005 @xc_iles Ok you also believe god became man

@MarkStephevsbm @xc_iles He said as man now is God once was and as he is now man shall become. Theosis