LDS Mormon godhood vs Christian Trinity - Thread Split

[ArmenianJohn]

I have heard and read about monophysite, but not miaphysite. Tell me about miaphysite. Explain the difference between mia and mono, thank you.

Sure... They both mean "one" but with slightly different meanings. "Mono" means one as in "only one". "Mia" means "one" but is more in the sense of "unity" or "unified".

Monophysite is the term typically applied to those who held to what is called the Eutychian heresy. It holds that Christ's nature is one only which blends human and divine nature into one nature that is neither (although they think of it as almost fully divine). This is considered heretical because it contradicts scripture regarding Christ's humanity, i.e. being fully man while also being fully God.

Miaphysite is the term typically applied to those who hold to the orthodox teaching of St. Cyril of Alexandria. He taught (correctly) that Christ has one nature but that nature has both divine and human character, fully. This is orthodox because while it states that Christ is one person it recognizes that He fully has a divine character and a human character.

 

[mmksparbud]

Whatever light given must be in line with what has already been given. Such as when the bible says God is the one and only God and there is no other, that He always was and always will be---that is exactly what it means and anybody that comes along and says that God was a man before He was God, and there are many other gods on other worlds is giving another gospel that is not from God. Or like when the bible says that God breathed into Adam and Adam became a living soul, then someone comes along and says Adam existed before he was created, they are contradicting the bible and should not be listened to. That is not just adding to, it is changing His word.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Whatever light given must be in line with what has already been given.

And we have shown over and over again how nothing in Mormonism contradicts the Bible. The only part of Creedal Christianity which Mormonism contradicts are the man-made-creedal parts.

Such as when the bible says God is the one and only God and there is no other, that He always was and always will be

This is also a Mormon belief. Yes, the full Mormon belief contradicts the idea of co-substantaion which is not in the Bible.

Or like when the bible says that God breathed into Adam and Adam became a living soul, then someone comes along and says Adam existed before he was created,

A soul is a union of a spirit and a body. So yes, Adam's soul came into being then. Adam's spirit had existed before then, which in no way contradicts the Bible.

 

[mmksparbud]

And we have shown over and over again how nothing in Mormonism contradicts the Bible. The only part of Creedal Christianity which Mormonism contradicts are the man-made-creedal parts.


This is also a Mormon belief. Yes, the full Mormon belief contradicts the idea of co-substantaion which is not in the Bible.


A soul is a union of a spirit and a body. So yes, Adam's soul came into being then. Adam's spirit had existed before then, which in no way contradicts the Bible.

It totally contradicts the bible!! At the moment of life, when God breathed in Adam, he became a living soul----not before. The concept of God was man before He was God in not in the bible and contradicts it, that there are other gods on other worlds contradicts the bible. Yes, we know you insist that Mormonism doesn't contradict the bible, then you turn around and contradict it with these statements, and with a Heavenly Mother---where is that?? You add all sorts of things not there and insist it is there!! There is nothing that says Adam existed before he was crested, nothing that says there is a Heavenly Mother, nothing that says God was human before He became God, certainly nothing that says there are other gods on other worlds, nor does it say that Satan is brother to Jesus but it does say Jesus created all things which includes Lucifer.

 

[Peter1000]

We should desire truth. God's word is truth and that includes the Old Testament.

Your right.

Now find a Stephen-like event in the bible that helps demonstrate, in a real setting, the nature of your trinity God.

 

[Albion]

Your right.

Now find a Stephen-like event in the bible that helps demonstrate, in a real setting, the nature of your trinity God.

It's been posted a thousand times--God is one (Genesis), Jesus is God (New Testament in Jn 1:1ff and many other places), and the HS is God and described by use of a personal pronoun (Jn 16:12-15). No matter what language is used to explain this, it amounts to a Trinity. If any of it is left out, of course that amounts to denying the Trinity by denying part of the Bible.

 

[Jane_Doe]

It's been posted a thousand times--God is one (Genesis), Jesus is God (New Testament in Jn 1:1 and many other places), and the HS is God and described by use of a personal pronoun. No matter what language is used to explain this, it amounts to a Trinity. If any of it is left out, of course that amounts to denying the Trinity by denying part of the Bible.

The idea of co-substanition (critical to the Trinity idea) is foreign to the Bible.

(Note: I respect that you believe it and it's very important to you. But it's not in the Bible)

 

[Albion]

The idea of co-substanition (critical to the Trinity idea) is foreign to the Bible.

You'll first have to explain your understanding of that word if you would like a reply.

 

[Jane_Doe]

You'll first have to explain your understanding of that word if you would like a reply.

Let's be simple: the Bible doesn't mention anything about God's substance at all. This renders any further elaborations pointless.

 

[NYCGuy]

Let's be simple: the Bible doesn't mention anything about God's substance at all. This renders any further elaborations pointless.

But what is "substance" referring to that leads you to say that the idea of "co-substantiation" is foreign to the Bible?

 

[Jane_Doe]

But what is "substance" referring to that leads you to say that the idea of "co-substantiation" is foreign to the Bible?

Why does it matter? It's totally not in the Bible.

 

[NYCGuy]

Why does it matter? It's totally not in the Bible.

How do you know (as well, I'll reiterate a point that I always make-the idea of everything having to be found in the Bible is itself found nowhere in the Bible)? It matters because if you understand what "substance" is referring to, then perhaps you would understand that many believe that it is found in the Bible (even if the actual word isn't-and it must be noted that "substance" is often used interchangeably with other words, since we must remember that these are English translations of ancient Greek and/or Latin words). So, it would be helpful to know what is your understanding of what "substance" is referring to to appropriately address your criticism that "the idea of co-substantiation" is foreign to the Bible.

 

[Jane_Doe]

How do you know (as well, I'll reiterate a point that I always make-the idea of everything having to be found in the Bible is itself found nowhere in the Bible)? It matters because if you understand what "substance" is referring to, then perhaps you would understand that many believe that it is found in the Bible (even if the actual word isn't-and it must be noted that "substance" is often used interchangeably with other words, since we must remember that these are English translations of ancient Greek and/or Latin words). So, it would be helpful to know what is your understanding of what "substance" is referring to to appropriately address your criticism that "the idea of co-substantiation" is foreign to the Bible.

If you want to convince me that co-substantation is in the Bible, how about you point to a verse?

 

[NYCGuy]

If you want to convince me that co-substantation is in the Bible, how about you point to a verse?

First, please provide your understanding, as I asked initially. Thank you.

 

[Jane_Doe]

First, please provide your understanding, as I asked initially. Thank you.

Layman's version (I could do the greek philosophical as well):
1) The Father is God
2) The Son is God
3) The Spirit is God
4) None of the above (Father/Son/Spirit) are the same person
5) There is only 1 God.
6) The way in which the Father/Son/Spirit are all 1 God but 3 different persons is because they all share a common super-meta-physical substance which makes them 1 super-meta-phyiscial being.

Trinity is NOT (all of these are heresies): the clover analogy, the different roles analogy, the water/ice/vapor analogy, the Borg analogy.

I am looking specially for verses supporting point #6 (1-5 have no argument with here).

 

[Peter1000]

Sure... They both mean "one" but with slightly different meanings. "Mono" means one as in "only one". "Mia" means "one" but is more in the sense of "unity" or "unified".

Monophysite is the term typically applied to those who held to what is called the Eutychian heresy. It holds that Christ's nature is one only which blends human and divine nature into one nature that is neither (although they think of it as almost fully divine). This is considered heretical because it contradicts scripture regarding Christ's humanity, i.e. being fully man while also being fully God.

Miaphysite is the term typically applied to those who hold to the orthodox teaching of St. Cyril of Alexandria. He taught (correctly) that Christ has one nature but that nature has both divine and human character, fully. This is orthodox because while it states that Christ is one person it recognizes that He fully has a divine character and a human character.

Was there a schism between Eutychian and Cyril followers?

 

[NYCGuy]

6) The way in which the Father/Son/Spirit are all 1 God but 3 different persons is because they all share a common super-meta-physical substance which makes them 1 super-meta-phyiscial being.

Trinity is NOT (all of these are heresies): the clover analogy, the different roles analogy, the water/ice/vapor analogy, the Borg analogy.

I am looking specially for verses supporting point #6 (1-5 have no argument with here).

Thank you. However, this still doesn't tell me anything. What is substance referring to? That was the question asked by another poster and myself. "Super-meta-physical substance" and "super-meta-physical being" don't tell me anything, and, I've never heard a Trinitarian use those phrases.

So again, asked earlier, what is your understanding of the word?

 

[withwonderingawe]

Thank you. However, this still doesn't tell me anything. What is substance referring to? That was the question asked by another poster and myself. "Super-meta-physical substance" and "super-meta-physical being" don't tell me anything, and, I've never heard a Trinitarian use those phrases.

So again, asked earlier, what is your understanding of the word?

Well why don't you describe the Trinity as you understand it to us.

My understanding comes from both the Nicene & Athanasian Creeds;

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.

"That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance"

There is a big difference here between the two of them yet at the same time the same a thread which pulls them together.

"nor dividing the substance" & 'One being with the Father'

It just does not make any sense to me at all, Jesus call God/El his father and God. You can't be your own Father, you can not be your own God.

 

[NYCGuy]

Well why don't you describe the Trinity as you understand it to us.

My understanding comes from both the Nicene & Athanasian Creeds;

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.

"That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance"

There is a big difference here between the two of them yet at the same time the same a thread which pulls them together.

"nor dividing the substance" & 'One being with the Father'

It just does not make any sense to me at all, Jesus call God/El his father and God. You can't be your own Father, you can not be your own God.

I'm running out to work right now, will respond in more detail later, but suffice it to say that:

1) I will wait, as was asked initially, to see what the understanding of "substance" is, to be able to say if it is found in the Bible or not.

2) Your last sentence above demonstrates that you do not understand the Trinity. We do not believe that Jesus is His own Father.

 

[withwonderingawe]

I'm running out to work right now, will respond in more detail later, but suffice it to say that:

1) I will wait, as was asked initially, to see what the understanding of "substance" is, to be able to say if it is found in the Bible or not.

2) Your last sentence above demonstrates that you do not understand the Trinity. We do not believe that Jesus is His own Father.

But he's God and there is only one of those