LDS Mormonism is an enemy of the Cross and therefore not Christian

[dzheremi]

You continue to miss the point. The bible has defined who can be a Christian, not you or all of the Christian churches today, but the bible. It doesn't matter what the history of Christianity says, the bible says, "the disciples of Christ were called Christians first at Antioch. It is not a complicated definition. IOW if you are a follower of Christ, you are a Christian. Under that definition, Mormons are Christians. Under your definition we are not Christians, Athanasius would turn in his grave.

You just wrote that it doesn't matter what the history of Christianity says (!), and then went on to claim that St. Athanasius would turn over in his grave at what a member of his Church has said about the importance of Christian history. This is so incredibly nonsensical and baffling that I don't even know what to say. I just wanted to point out that you are claiming to not care about Christian history while simultaneously trying to use one of its pivotal figures against his own church. I see what you are doing, it's stupid, and now we are moving on, for the sake of my sanity.

BTW, you realize that most of your knowledge of JS comes from his critics.

I was unaware that quoting directly from LDS.org regarding Joseph Smith's stated doctrines as delivered in his own sermons counted as listening to his critics. Maybe LDS.org is an anti-Mormon site too.

Well if I were to read mostly what the critics say of Athanasius, it works out that he is way worse than JS ever thought of being.

In Mormon fantasy land maybe, but in the real world St. Athanasius is pretty well-respected by all the major churches. He is venerated in Oriental Orthodoxy, Eastern Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, the Anglican Communion, and apparently also by the Continuing Anglicans. Taken together, that's the lion's share of Christianity.

I know you revere him as a Saint, like we revere JS as a prophet, but his critics thought him to be anii-Christ/anti-Christian. So it is interesting how we view great people. The angel Moroni prophesied to JS that his name would eventually be known for both good and evil all over the world. Just to let you know, you and I fulfill that prophecy.

The angel Moroni could claim that Joseph Smith and the Hamburglar would one day start a Mormon colony on the moon and it still wouldn't amount to a hill of beans, because the angel Moroni never existed and Joseph Smith is a total fraud.

I'm sure you have read the history of Christianity, especially around the time of Athanasius and Constantine.
You are aware that soon after pagan worship was suppressed, and about 385 A.D., the new Christian government for the first time executed Christians that deviated from the government-endorsed orthodoxy.
In less than 80 years, the church persecuted by the state morphed into the state-sponsored persecuting church.

And this has what to do with St. Athanasius, who died twelve years before the date you give, in 373? And anyway was never a governor or any of that? You're just throwing everything against the wall now to see what sticks.

And why would try this approach with a Coptic Orthodox person, of all people? Do you think I have any love for state-sponsored persecution of people? Then you're the one who must not know history. Nevertheless, none of this changes the fact that Mormonism is wrong.

You are still at it today, going after Christians who do not believe how you and a lot of other Christians think is orthodox Christianity today.. So good going, keep up the good works.

Yeah, because disagreeing with Mormons on the internet is totally the same as executing people. Right.

 

[dzheremi]

You have again completely missed the point. Let's take the baptism of Christ. You totally avoided the subject of consubstantiality between the 3 Persons, because it does not exist in the NT. And you went off on some tangent that did not prove anything.

First of all, just because you apparently do not understand or do not appreciate what has been written doesn't mean that it's "some tangent" that is not connected to what you wrote. Rather, the point of sharing St. Augustine's words is that the saint ties His baptism to His divinity as manifested through His creative power. Recall St. Augustine's words here, that He established baptism Himself and then later underwent it, as it was by Him that all things were made. He made baptism and underwent it, He made man and He was incarnate and became man, etc. Christ our God established all things as He is consubstantial with the Father He makes known to us through His acts, most definitely including His baptism.

So at the baptism, God the Father was speaking from heaven, Jesus was coming out of the River Jordan on the earth, and the HS was between the Father in heaven and Jesus on earth, all 3 in a different place at the same time. This specifically and biblically proves that the 3 are separate and distinct Individuals, each with their own individual substances.

How does it prove that they have their own individual substances? Do you know what the word "substance" means? It is a claim regarding the essence of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, that they are all of one and the same divinity. If you deny that, then you have three separate divinities, and hence three separate gods, and are a polytheist.

If they were consubstantial, like you say, this is how the baptism of Christ would have been recorded by Matthew. When God, and Jesus, and the HS came out of the River Jordan, God the Father spoke out of Jesus's mouth and said, This is My beloved Son....., and there would not be a dove coming down from heaven and lighting on Jesus's shoulder because the HS would already be in Jesus. This scenerio is contrary to what the bible says. But that is what would have had to happen if God the Father and Jesus and the HS are constubstantial.

Again, why would it have to be this way? Why not just respect God's prerogatives as God and not dream up alternate scenarios based on your own misunderstanding of Christianity? Why not follow the Fathers, who understand things better than either of us do?

IOW Matthew would have recorded no words from heaven and no HS descending like a dove and falling on Jesus. Since the 3 share the same substance, they would all have come out of the River Jordan in 1 body.

Why does that follow? You do realize that their consubstantiality is in their shared divinity which is manifest in all things, right? As our father St. Athanasius the Apostolic put it in his classic work on the incarnation: For the Lord touched all parts of creation, and freed and undeceived them all from every deceit. As St. Paul says, "Having put off from Himself the principalities and the powers, He triumphed on the cross," so that no one could possibly be any longer deceived, but everywhere might find the very Word of God. For thus man, enclosed on every side by the works of creation and everywhere—in heaven, in Hades, in men and on the earth, beholding the unfolded Godhead of the Word, is no longer deceived concerning God, but worships Christ alone, and through Him rightly knows the Father.

+++

Why would there ever need to be three gods in order to handle who will be where when the work of the One God is found everywhere? And you may note as well the end of the passage it is stated that the worship of Christ is the way that one rightly worships the Father -- how could that be so, were they not consubstantial? Other examples that we have of people who likewise did the will of the Father (as Mormons claim is the connection between their three persons, being a unity of action rather than of substance), such as Moses, did not establish this sort of relationship (as they were never consubstantial with God). In fact, we are told that when Moses came down to deliver the tablets to the people, the people were afraid to even look at him. (In the Coptic fraction for Lent, we are told that the people actually covered their eyes because they could not look at him after he talked with God; this is slightly different than what is recorded in Exodus 34, but fits with the fact that Moses put on a veil after speaking with the Lord.)

It is only in the case of Christ that we can say, as He Himself said, that when we have seen Him, we have seen the Father.

Mormons OTOH believe that they are 3 separate beings. So our theology allows for all 3 to be in different places at the same time. So we would not rewrite the baptismal event as you would have to. Our theology agrees like a glove with the baptismal event recorded in the bible by Matthew.

Why is this heretical anti-Christ theology needed so that they may be in different places at once? Are they as regular human beings, bound by space and time?

Your attempt to prove consubstantiality by quoting John 10 is frought with difficulty. That statement (which is not an event, like I asked for) means they are one, not by sharing mass, but because they are so united in their purpose, it is as if they are 1 God.

"Sharing mass"? What on earth does that even mean in this context? When was anything like that even mentioned by anyone?

And again, a union of purpose rather than of substance/ousia is not a true union. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are not one God because they are all "doing the same thing" or "working together" (as any three people who are in no way divine may), but because they are in their essence and nature of one and the same divinity. It is a claim about the 'stuff' of which God is 'composed', if you will. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit all share one and the same divinity; they do not merely act in concert.

If you doubt me, and if you are a seeker of real truth, read John 17:20-23 and you will find that all people that believe can be one with God and Jesus. Not one big consubstantial blob, but one, so united in purpose, it is as if we are one person.

"One big consubstantial blob"? What a horrifying way to talk about the God that sustains you. Lord have mercy.

And yes, John 17:20-23 pertains to the unifying of man with God. Were this not possible, how could Jesus Christ, who is God, have become man, blessing and sanctifying our nature by assuming it (following St. Gregory Nazianzen, what is not assumed is not saved)? In traditional Orthodox theology, this concept is called 'Theosis', which is the divinization of man, and is an eternal process of becoming more and more like God through our cooperation with Him. Note well, however, the difference between this and the Mormon doctrine of men becoming God, as theosis supposes that we may become by grace, though this cooperation with God, united with God the Father as Christ is speaking of in that verse, but it is not by becoming Him any more than Christ 'became' the Father (which no reasonable theologian would ever state). Indeed, man cannot become the almighty God (as there is only one, and we're clearly not it), but may be in union with Him through our cooperation with Him. Hence Christ tells us elsewhere that we are to be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect, which we may do (in fact, must do if we are to enter heaven) without ever becoming gods ourselves. It is union without fusion, as I've heard one Eastern Orthodox priest put it.

It is because of your 4th century Christianity, Greek, Egyptian, Constantinian, Roman conglomeration of orthodoxy that interfers with your being able to recognize NT reality, which is absolutely not Athanasius, Nicean orthodoxy.

I cannot disagree more strenuously. You are flat out wrong, and if you insist on slandering our Orthodox Christian fathers and faith, you'd do well to hand in the Bible which THEY GAVE YOU and quit teaching your horrendous blasphemies with it. Lord have mercy.

 

[Peter1000]

First of all, just because you apparently do not understand or do not appreciate what has been written doesn't mean that it's "some tangent" that is not connected to what you wrote. Rather, the point of sharing St. Augustine's words is that the saint ties His baptism to His divinity as manifested through His creative power. Recall St. Augustine's words here, that He established baptism Himself and then later underwent it, as it was by Him that all things were made. He made baptism and underwent it, He made man and He was incarnate and became man, etc. Christ our God established all things as He is consubstantial with the Father He makes known to us through His acts, most definitely including His baptism.



How does it prove that they have their own individual substances? Do you know what the word "substance" means? It is a claim regarding the essence of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, that they are all of one and the same divinity. If you deny that, then you have three separate divinities, and hence three separate gods, and are a polytheist.



Again, why would it have to be this way? Why not just respect God's prerogatives as God and not dream up alternate scenarios based on your own misunderstanding of Christianity? Why not follow the Fathers, who understand things better than either of us do?



Why does that follow? You do realize that their consubstantiality is in their shared divinity which is manifest in all things, right? As our father St. Athanasius the Apostolic put it in his classic work on the incarnation: For the Lord touched all parts of creation, and freed and undeceived them all from every deceit. As St. Paul says, "Having put off from Himself the principalities and the powers, He triumphed on the cross," so that no one could possibly be any longer deceived, but everywhere might find the very Word of God. For thus man, enclosed on every side by the works of creation and everywhere—in heaven, in Hades, in men and on the earth, beholding the unfolded Godhead of the Word, is no longer deceived concerning God, but worships Christ alone, and through Him rightly knows the Father.

+++

Why would there ever need to be three gods in order to handle who will be where when the work of the One God is found everywhere? And you may note as well the end of the passage it is stated that the worship of Christ is the way that one rightly worships the Father -- how could that be so, were they not consubstantial? Other examples that we have of people who likewise did the will of the Father (as Mormons claim is the connection between their three persons, being a unity of action rather than of substance), such as Moses, did not establish this sort of relationship (as they were never consubstantial with God). In fact, we are told that when Moses came down to deliver the tablets to the people, the people were afraid to even look at him. (In the Coptic fraction for Lent, we are told that the people actually covered their eyes because they could not look at him after he talked with God; this is slightly different than what is recorded in Exodus 34, but fits with the fact that Moses put on a veil after speaking with the Lord.)

It is only in the case of Christ that we can say, as He Himself said, that when we have seen Him, we have seen the Father.



Why is this heretical anti-Christ theology needed so that they may be in different places at once? Are they as regular human beings, bound by space and time?



"Sharing mass"? What on earth does that even mean in this context? When was anything like that even mentioned by anyone?

And again, a union of purpose rather than of substance/ousia is not a true union. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are not one God because they are all "doing the same thing" or "working together" (as any three people who are in no way divine may), but because they are in their essence and nature of one and the same divinity. It is a claim about the 'stuff' of which God is 'composed', if you will. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit all share one and the same divinity; they do not merely act in concert.



"One big consubstantial blob"? What a horrifying way to talk about the God that sustains you. Lord have mercy.

And yes, John 17:20-23 pertains to the unifying of man with God. Were this not possible, how could Jesus Christ, who is God, have become man, blessing and sanctifying our nature by assuming it (following St. Gregory Nazianzen, what is not assumed is not saved)? In traditional Orthodox theology, this concept is called 'Theosis', which is the divinization of man, and is an eternal process of becoming more and more like God through our cooperation with Him. Note well, however, the difference between this and the Mormon doctrine of men becoming God, as theosis supposes that we may become by grace, though this cooperation with God, united with God the Father as Christ is speaking of in that verse, but it is not by becoming Him any more than Christ 'became' the Father (which no reasonable theologian would ever state). Indeed, man cannot become the almighty God (as there is only one, and we're clearly not it), but may be in union with Him through our cooperation with Him. Hence Christ tells us elsewhere that we are to be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect, which we may do (in fact, must do if we are to enter heaven) without ever becoming gods ourselves. It is union without fusion, as I've heard one Eastern Orthodox priest put it.



I cannot disagree more strenuously. You are flat out wrong, and if you insist on slandering our Orthodox Christian fathers and faith, you'd do well to hand in the Bible which THEY GAVE YOU and quit teaching your horrendous blasphemies with it. Lord have mercy.

I really have to figure this out. So stay with me.

I must be missing what the word "consubstantiation" means.
To me it means that God the Father and Jesus and the HS always share the same space at all times. They are 3 Persons in 1 God. They share the same substance, whatever that is? That they share the same divinity, I understand that, they are all divine. But this sharing of the same substance is like they always share the same space.
So it seems like, if they share the same space, all the time, wherever Jesus goes, God the Father is with him and the HS is with him, in his same space.

In this light, when he died on the cross, he not only died, but so did the Father and the HS who were with Jesus on the cross. They are consubstantial, 3 Persons in 1 God, all share the same space, all the time.

So when we go back to the baptism, the scriptures seem to be telling us that they do not share the same space at the same time. This seems to prove that they are not consubstantial, they are not 3 Persons in 1 God, they do not share the same space, all the time. It is because God the Father was in heaven, at the same time Jesus was on earth coming out of the River Jordan, and the HS was half way between the both of them.

What am I missing?

 

[dzheremi]

I really have to figure this out. So stay with me.

I must be missing what the word "consubstantiation" means.
To me it means that God the Father and Jesus and the HS always share the same space at all times. They are 3 Persons in 1 God. They share the same substance, whatever that is? That they share the same divinity, I understand that, they are all divine. But this sharing of the same substance is like they always share the same space.

No, it does not mean that they always share the same physical space. Consubstantial/homoousios (as far as I can tell, the former is as close as Latin ever got to translating the latter) means that they share the same substance, i.e., that they are all one and the same divinity, as we pray in the Creed: "We believe in One God, God the Father, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, and all things seen and unseen; and in One Lord, Jesus Christ, the Only-Begotten Son of God; Begotten of the Father before all ages; God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God; Begotten, not created; of one essence with the Father" (this is what we say in the Coptic Orthodox Church when praying in English; in Greek and in Coptic which borrowed this term from Greek the word is homoousios; generally in other churches the English form, e.g., in the RCC, uses the Latin-derived term "consubstantial" instead, which is no big deal as all these words mean the same thing: that Jesus and the Father and the Holy Spirit are all of one and the same divinity). The use of any of these terms makes no claim about physical space at all.

So it seems like, if they share the same space, all the time, wherever Jesus goes, God the Father is with him and the HS is with him, in his same space.

But that's not what the claim is. It's not a claim about physical space. As I wrote earlier (admittedly clumsily, but that's what happens when you try to purposely explain such things without using the traditional terms that we already use to describe this relation), it is a claim about the internal 'stuff' of which the Persons of the Trinity are composed. That God the Father is divine, and Jesus Christ His Son is also divine, and the Holy Spirit is also divine, and that the Divinity that they are all composed of is the same divinity. "True God from True God" as the Creed puts it. None are more or less divine than any other (this is important to emphasize in light of heresies of the early days that sought to make them unequal, as the Pneumatomachoi did, for instance), or even differently divine or somehow not divine in comparison to any other (as Arius first tried to claim, and then Nestorius, and others). Heaven forbid! No, they are co-equal, of one substance/homoousios -- that is, one and the same divinity (not a different substance, nor the same substance but to a different degree, or what have you). This is what "consubstantial" means.

In this light, when he died on the cross, he not only died, but so did the Father and the HS who were with Jesus on the cross. They are consubstantial, 3 Persons in 1 God, all share the same space, all the time.

No. This is incorrect. Again, it is absolutely not a claim about physical space.

So when we go back to the baptism, the scriptures seem to be telling us that they do not share the same space at the same time. This seems to prove that they are not consubstantial, they are not 3 Persons in 1 God, they do not share the same space, all the time. It is because God the Father was in heaven, at the same time Jesus was on earth coming out of the River Jordan, and the HS was half way between the both of them.

What am I missing?

You are missing a correct understanding of what it means to be consubstantial/homoousios. It is not at all a claim about who is occupying what physical space and when, as though God is limited in the same way that we are in space and time. It is saying that God the Father, Jesus Christ the Only-Begotten Son, and the Holy Spirit, the Life-giver are all of one and the same divinity. This is precisely what protects against polytheism and modalism, which are what you end up with when you make distinctions between them which violate their shared substance/essence or do not recognize their personhood (respectively). Mormonism does the former by positing that they are merely united in action rather than in substance, while Oneness Pentecostalism and other movements tend to do the latter by claiming that when the scriptures or other writings are talking about the Son in particular or about the Holy Spirit in particular, they really mean it as a kind of mask or other name for this or that aspect of the Father. Nope.

 

[Peter1000]

No, it does not mean that they always share the same physical space. Consubstantial/homoousios (as far as I can tell, the former is as close as Latin ever got to translating the latter) means that they share the same substance, i.e., that they are all one and the same divinity, as we pray in the Creed: "We believe in One God, God the Father, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, and all things seen and unseen; and in One Lord, Jesus Christ, the Only-Begotten Son of God; Begotten of the Father before all ages; God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God; Begotten, not created; of one essence with the Father" (this is what we say in the Coptic Orthodox Church when praying in English; in Greek and in Coptic which borrowed this term from Greek the word is homoousios; generally in other churches the English form, e.g., in the RCC, uses the Latin-derived term "consubstantial" instead, which is no big deal as all these words mean the same thing: that Jesus and the Father and the Holy Spirit are all of one and the same divinity). The use of any of these terms makes no claim about physical space at all.


But that's not what the claim is. It's not a claim about physical space. As I wrote earlier (admittedly clumsily, but that's what happens when you try to purposely explain such things without using the traditional terms that we already use to describe this relation), it is a claim about the internal 'stuff' of which the Persons of the Trinity are composed. That God the Father is divine, and Jesus Christ His Son is also divine, and the Holy Spirit is also divine, and that the Divinity that they are all composed of is the same divinity. "True God from True God" as the Creed puts it. None are more or less divine than any other (this is important to emphasize in light of heresies of the early days that sought to make them unequal, as the Pneumatomachoi did, for instance), or even differently divine or somehow not divine in comparison to any other (as Arius first tried to claim, and then Nestorius, and others). Heaven forbid! No, they are co-equal, of one substance/homoousios -- that is, one and the same divinity (not a different substance, nor the same substance but to a different degree, or what have you). This is what "consubstantial" means.



No. This is incorrect. Again, it is absolutely not a claim about physical space.



You are missing a correct understanding of what it means to be consubstantial/homoousios. It is not at all a claim about who is occupying what physical space and when, as though God is limited in the same way that we are in space and time. It is saying that God the Father, Jesus Christ the Only-Begotten Son, and the Holy Spirit, the Life-giver are all of one and the same divinity. This is precisely what protects against polytheism and modalism, which are what you end up with when you make distinctions between them which violate their shared substance/essence or do not recognize their personhood (respectively). Mormonism does the former by positing that they are merely united in action rather than in substance, while Oneness Pentecostalism and other movements tend to do the latter by claiming that when the scriptures or other writings are talking about the Son in particular or about the Holy Spirit in particular, they really mean it as a kind of mask or other name for this or that aspect of the Father. Nope.

I understand the idea that they can all share the same divinity. They can still be 3 distinct individuals and still share the same divinity and be co-equal in majesty, etc..

But if you are saying, divinity = substance, now my definition falls apart, and your definition makes sense from a definition stand point. But only from a definition stand point.

But now give me a biblical example of divinity = substance, like the baptism, and I believe your definition falls apart. IOW divinity does not = substance.

Substance to me is apart from divinity. Substance is = to: spirit matter, or flesh and bone matter. Substance is some kind of matter. In the Godhead, Their substance is also divine substance. Divine is not = to substance, it is an adjective that describes Their substance. The 3 are made of the same divine substance, but They do not share the same divine substance, like they share the same divinity. They each have Their own equally divine substance.

Because They Each have Their own equally divine substance, They can be in 3 places at the same time, which the bible testifies of. If They shared the same divine substance, all 3 would have to be in the same place at the same time, always, which cannot be supported by the bible.

So does divine = substance, OR is divine an adjective of substance?

 

[dzheremi]

The fathers teach us that Christ is homoousios with the Father and with the Holy Spirit, meaning of one essence/substance (or consubstantial, to use the Latin term) -- the same essence/substance, so no, they don't each have their own substance; that would make them heteroousios and hence destroy the unity of substance/essence, making them three gods instead of one. That is not the Holy Trinity. That is polytheism.

I have no idea what "an adjective of substance" means, and I've already explained several times how it is not a claim about physical space. I'm not really sure what more I can say if you still insist that it must mean that they occupy the same space. That's just not what it means. You are talking about something else. It is furthermore not a claim about physical matter. How could it be? What purpose would the incarnation serve to One who is already Himself incarnate? In fact, how could there even be a separate event known as 'the incarnation' if this was already the state of things? Instead what the scriptures teach us is that the Son is the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15; emphasis mine).

 

[Peter1000]

The fathers teach us that Christ is homoousios with the Father and with the Holy Spirit, meaning of one essence/substance (or consubstantial, to use the Latin term) -- the same essence/substance, so no, they don't each have their own substance; that would make them heteroousios and hence destroy the unity of substance/essence, making them three gods instead of one. That is not the Holy Trinity. That is polytheism.

I have no idea what "an adjective of substance" means, and I've already explained several times how it is not a claim about physical space. I'm not really sure what more I can say if you still insist that it must mean that they occupy the same space. That's just not what it means. You are talking about something else. It is furthermore not a claim about physical matter. How could it be? What purpose would the incarnation serve to One who is already Himself incarnate? In fact, how could there even be a separate event known as 'the incarnation' if this was already the state of things? Instead what the scriptures teach us is that the Son is the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15; emphasis mine).

You keep referring to the fathers that teach you. I usually hear Christians say that the bible teaches them. I believe the reason you are willing to substitute the fathers for the bible is that the idea that Jesus is homoousios with God the Father and the HS is difficult to reconcile with the bible.

For instance the baptism clearly demonstrates that the 3 are heteroousios, not homoousios. If they were
homoousios, what is connecting them, what is keeping the integrity of the unity of substance/essence? They are clearly in 3 different places at the same time. Do you see my dilemma?

3 separate Persons = heteroousios, 3 in 1 = homoousios. There are 3 separate Persons at the baptism, hence they must be heteroousios in nature.

When Stephen looks up at his martyrdom, he sees Jesus standing next to God the Father. Stephen clearly sees 2 separate Persons, hence heteroousios in nature not homoousios. If they were homoousios, Stephen would have only seen 1 Person.

That's why I say that homoousios does not reconcile with the bible.

If you can, take the baptism and show me how the integrity of the unity of substance (3 Persons in 1 God) is maintained even though there were 3 Persons in 3 different places at 1 time.

 

[NYCGuy]

Dzheremi has explained multiple times how the belief in homoousios (as understood by Trinitarians themselves) does not detract from the clear teaching of the Trinity that the 3 Persons are distinct from each other. You keep repeating an idea of homoousios that is not the way that Trinitarians understand it, and therefore you keep trying to force it into a box of your own making. It has been explained, in some detail, by dzheremi. Your understanding of it is not the understanding of Trinitarians, and you're arguing against a straw man.

 

[dzheremi]

Edit: I didn't see the post above this one until it was too late. I had a long reply here, but NYCGuy has put it very succinctly and correctly (thank you).

Peter: Until you explain why you continue to post as though essence and physical space or mass are the same thing (and hence that homoousios refers to something to which it clearly does not refer), I'm afraid any conversation with you will be utterly pointless. I thought that you posted earlier that you needed to figure this out, but now you are posting as though you already have and therefore it must mean what you think it means, even though it doesn't, and never has. Your premises are wrong, therefore your implications are wrong, and your conclusions are wrong. You are wrong. I feel as though I have done enough attempted explaining already in this thread, and I am beginning to suspect that you might not actually be reading what is written in replies to you (or else why would you continue to say "they can't be homoousios if they are in different places", as though I haven't already addressed several times why this is an irrelevant and nonsensical statement?), which makes me not want to engage with you anymore. If you are wanting to learn what Christianity teaches about God, that is one thing. But I do not post all this so that you can continue to post irrelevant replies on topics that have already been addressed over and over again.

I will leave this thread now with an excerpt from the first letter of our holy father St. Athanasius the Apostolic to Serapion, in which HH St. Athanasius discusses the Holy Trinity. I believe that everything HH writes is directly applicable to the present conversation and the overall topic of the thread, as the distance between his holy words and the confusion and delusion of Mormonism is starkly illustrated by the comparison of the content of the letter (including its many scriptural references) with the doctrines espoused by the Mormons who have posted in this thread in an attempt to present their religion as a form of Christianity. It is not.

Our father writes:

You who are without sense and in all things reckless, why do you not the rather cease your impertinent inquiries about the holy Trinity, and only believe that it exists ? You have the Apostle as your teacher for this, when he says: "It is necessary first to believe on God that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek after him." (Cf Heb 11) He did not say, "how he is," but only, "that he is".' But if they are not overwhelmed by this, let them say how the Father is, that so they may learn how his Word is. But it is absurd, they will say, to ask such questions about the Father. Let them hear, then, that it is also absurd to ask them concerning his Word.



Since, therefore, such an attempt is futile madness, nay, more than madness !, let no one ask such questions any more, or else let him learn only that which is in the Scriptures. For the illustrations they contain which bear upon this subject are sufficient and suitable. The Father is called fountain and light: "They have forsaken me the fountain of living water";(Jer 2:13) and again in Baruch, "Why, O Israel, art thou in the land of thine enemies ? Thou hast forsaken the fountain of wisdom"; (Bar 3:12) and, according to John: "Our God is light." (1Jo 1:5) But the Son, in contrast with the fountain, is called river: "The river of God is full of water." (Ps 65:9) In contrast with the light, he is called radiance, as Paul says: "Who, being the radiance of his glory and the image of his essence." (Heb 1:3) We may see in the Son the Spirit also by whom we are enlightened. "That he may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him, having the eyes of your heart enlightened". (Eph 1:17-18) But when we are enlightened by the Spirit, it is Christ who in him enlightens us. For it says: "There was the true light which lighteth every man coming into the world." (Joh 1:9) Again, as the Father is fountain and the Son is called river, we are said to drink of the Spirit. For it is written: "We are all made to drink of one Spirit." (1Co 12:13) But when we are made to drink of the Spirit, we drink of Christ. For "they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ" (1Co 10:4)



Again, as Christ is true Son, so we, when we receive the Spirit, are made sons. "For you have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but you have received the Spirit of adoption." (Ro 8:15) But if by the Spirit we are made sons, it is clear that it is in Christ we are called children of God. For: "So many as received him, to them gave he the power to become children of God." (Joh 1:12)



Then, as the Father, in Paul's words, is the "only wise", (Ro 16:27) the Son is his Wisdom: "Christ the Power of God and the Wisdom of God." (1Co 1:24) But as the Son is Wisdom, so we, receiving the "Spirit of Wisdom", (Eph 1:17) have the Son and are made wise in him. For thus it is written in the one hundred and forty-fifth psalm: "The Lord looseth the prisoners, the Lord maketh wise the blind." (Ps 145 7-8 Sept.) When the Holy Spirit is given to us ("Receive the Holy Spirit," said the Saviour), God is in us; for so John wrote: "If we love one another, God abideth in us ; hereby know we that we abide in him and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit." (1Jo 4:12-13) But when God is in us, the Son also is in us. For the Son himself said: "The Father and I will come and make our abode with him." (Joh 14:23)



Furthermore, as the Son is life — for he says "I am the life" (Joh 11:25) — we are said to be quickened by the Spirit. For it says: "He that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead shall quicken also your mortal bodies, through his Spirit that dwelleth in you. (Ro 8:11) But when we are quickened by the Spirit, Christ himself is said to live in us; for it says: "I have been crucified with Christ. I live, and yet no longer I, but Christ liveth in me." (Ga 2:20)



Again, the Son declared that the Father worked the works that he did — for he says: "The Father abiding in me doeth his works. Believe me, that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for his works' sake." (Joh 14:11) So Paul declared that the works he worked by the power of the Spirit were the works of Christ: "For I will not dare to speak of any things save those which Christ wrought through me, for the obedience of the Gentiles, by word and deed, in the power of signs and wonders, in the power of the Holy Spirit." (Ro 15:18-19)



But if there is such co-ordination and unity within the holy Trinity, who can separate either the Son from the Father, or the Spirit from the Son or from the Father himself? Who would be so audacious as to say that the Trinity is unlike itself and diverse in nature, or that the Son is in essence foreign from the Father, or the Spirit alien from the Son? But how are these things ? If one should make inquiry and ask again : How, when the Spirit is in us, the Son is said to be in us ? How, when the Son is in us, the Father is said to be in us ? Or how, when it is truly a Trinity, the Trinity is described as one? Or why, when the One is in us, the Trinity is said to be in us ? — let him first divide the radiance from the light, or wisdom from the wise, or let him tell how these things are. But if this is not to be done, much more is it the audacity of madmen to make such inquiries concerning God. For tradition, as we have said, does not declare the Godhead to us by demonstration in words, but by faith and by a pious and reverent use of reason. For if Paul proclaimed the saving Gospel of the Cross, "not in words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power" (1Co 2:4) ; and if in Paradise he heard "unspeakable words which it is not lawful for a man to utter" (2Co 12:4) : who can declare the holy Trinity itself? Nevertheless, we can meet this difficulty, primarily by faith and then by using the illustrations mentioned above, I mean the image and the radiance, fountain and river, essence and expression. As the Son is in the Spirit as in his own image, so also the Father is in the Son. For divine Scripture, by way of relieving the impossibility of explaining and apprehending these matters in words, has given us illustrations of this kind; that it may be lawful, because of the unbelief of presumptuous men, to speak more plainly, and to speak without danger, and to think legitimately, and to believe that there is one sanctification, which is derived from the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit.



As the Son is an only-begotten offspring, so also the Spirit, being given and sent from the Son, is himself one and not many, nor one from among many, but Only Spirit. As the Son, the living Word, is one, so must the vital activity and gift whereby he sanctifies and enlightens be one perfect and complete; which is said to proceed from the Father, because it is from the Word, who is confessed to be from the Father, that it shines forth and is sent and is given. The Son is sent from the Father; for he says, "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son." (Joh 3:16) The Son sends the Spirit ; "If I go away, I will send the Paraclete." (Joh 16:7) The Son glorifies the Father, saying: "Father, I have glorified thee." (Joh 17:4) The Spirit glorifies the Son; for he says: "He shall glorify me." (Joh 16:14) The Son says: "The things I heard from the Father speak I unto the world." (Joh 15:15) The Spirit takes of the Son ; "He shall take of mine and shall declare it unto you." (Joh 16:15) The Son came in the name of the Father; "I am come in my Father's name" (Joh 5:43) The Holy Spirit came in the name of the Son,"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name." (Joh 14:26)



But, beyond these sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept. Upon this the Church is founded, and he who should fall away from it would not be a Christian, and should no longer be so called. There is, then, a Trinity, holy and complete, confessed to be God in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, having nothing foreign or external mixed with it, not composed of one that creates and one that is originated, but all creative ; and it is consistent and in nature indivisible, and its activity is one. The Father does all things through the Word in the Holy Spirit. Thus the unity of the holy Trinity is preserved. Thus one God is preached in the Church, "who is over all, and through all, and in all" (Eph 4:6) "Over all", as Father, as beginning, as fountain; "through all", through the Word; "in all", in the Holy Spirit. It is a Trinity not only in name and form of speech, but in truth and actuality. For as the Father is he that is, so also his Word is one that is and God over all. And the Holy Spirit is not without actual existence, but exists and has true being. Less than these (Persons) the Catholic Church does not hold, lest she sink to the level of the modern Jews, imitators of Caiaphas, and to the level of Sabellius. Nor does she add to them by speculation, lest she be carried into the polytheism of the heathen. And that they may know this to be the faith of the Church, let them learn how the Lord, when sending forth the Apostles, ordered them to lay this foundation for the Church, saying: "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." (Mt 28:19) The Apostles went, and thus they taught; and this is the preaching that extends to the whole Church which is under heaven.

 

[Peter1000]

Edit: I didn't see the post above this one until it was too late. I had a long reply here, but NYCGuy has put it very succinctly and correctly (thank you).

Peter: Until you explain why you continue to post as though essence and physical space or mass are the same thing (and hence that homoousios refers to something to which it clearly does not refer), I'm afraid any conversation with you will be utterly pointless. I thought that you posted earlier that you needed to figure this out, but now you are posting as though you already have and therefore it must mean what you think it means, even though it doesn't, and never has. Your premises are wrong, therefore your implications are wrong, and your conclusions are wrong. You are wrong. I feel as though I have done enough attempted explaining already in this thread, and I am beginning to suspect that you might not actually be reading what is written in replies to you (or else why would you continue to say "they can't be homoousios if they are in different places", as though I haven't already addressed several times why this is an irrelevant and nonsensical statement?), which makes me not want to engage with you anymore. If you are wanting to learn what Christianity teaches about God, that is one thing. But I do not post all this so that you can continue to post irrelevant replies on topics that have already been addressed over and over again.

I will leave this thread now with an excerpt from the first letter of our holy father St. Athanasius the Apostolic to Serapion, in which HH St. Athanasius discusses the Holy Trinity. I believe that everything HH writes is directly applicable to the present conversation and the overall topic of the thread, as the distance between his holy words and the confusion and delusion of Mormonism is starkly illustrated by the comparison of the content of the letter (including its many scriptural references) with the doctrines espoused by the Mormons who have posted in this thread in an attempt to present their religion as a form of Christianity. It is not.

Our father writes:

You who are without sense and in all things reckless, why do you not the rather cease your impertinent inquiries about the holy Trinity, and only believe that it exists ? You have the Apostle as your teacher for this, when he says: "It is necessary first to believe on God that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek after him." (Cf Heb 11) He did not say, "how he is," but only, "that he is".' But if they are not overwhelmed by this, let them say how the Father is, that so they may learn how his Word is. But it is absurd, they will say, to ask such questions about the Father. Let them hear, then, that it is also absurd to ask them concerning his Word.



Since, therefore, such an attempt is futile madness, nay, more than madness !, let no one ask such questions any more, or else let him learn only that which is in the Scriptures. For the illustrations they contain which bear upon this subject are sufficient and suitable. The Father is called fountain and light: "They have forsaken me the fountain of living water";(Jer 2:13) and again in Baruch, "Why, O Israel, art thou in the land of thine enemies ? Thou hast forsaken the fountain of wisdom"; (Bar 3:12) and, according to John: "Our God is light." (1Jo 1:5) But the Son, in contrast with the fountain, is called river: "The river of God is full of water." (Ps 65:9) In contrast with the light, he is called radiance, as Paul says: "Who, being the radiance of his glory and the image of his essence." (Heb 1:3) We may see in the Son the Spirit also by whom we are enlightened. "That he may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him, having the eyes of your heart enlightened". (Eph 1:17-18) But when we are enlightened by the Spirit, it is Christ who in him enlightens us. For it says: "There was the true light which lighteth every man coming into the world." (Joh 1:9) Again, as the Father is fountain and the Son is called river, we are said to drink of the Spirit. For it is written: "We are all made to drink of one Spirit." (1Co 12:13) But when we are made to drink of the Spirit, we drink of Christ. For "they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ" (1Co 10:4)



Again, as Christ is true Son, so we, when we receive the Spirit, are made sons. "For you have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but you have received the Spirit of adoption." (Ro 8:15) But if by the Spirit we are made sons, it is clear that it is in Christ we are called children of God. For: "So many as received him, to them gave he the power to become children of God." (Joh 1:12)



Then, as the Father, in Paul's words, is the "only wise", (Ro 16:27) the Son is his Wisdom: "Christ the Power of God and the Wisdom of God." (1Co 1:24) But as the Son is Wisdom, so we, receiving the "Spirit of Wisdom", (Eph 1:17) have the Son and are made wise in him. For thus it is written in the one hundred and forty-fifth psalm: "The Lord looseth the prisoners, the Lord maketh wise the blind." (Ps 145 7-8 Sept.) When the Holy Spirit is given to us ("Receive the Holy Spirit," said the Saviour), God is in us; for so John wrote: "If we love one another, God abideth in us ; hereby know we that we abide in him and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit." (1Jo 4:12-13) But when God is in us, the Son also is in us. For the Son himself said: "The Father and I will come and make our abode with him." (Joh 14:23)



Furthermore, as the Son is life — for he says "I am the life" (Joh 11:25) — we are said to be quickened by the Spirit. For it says: "He that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead shall quicken also your mortal bodies, through his Spirit that dwelleth in you. (Ro 8:11) But when we are quickened by the Spirit, Christ himself is said to live in us; for it says: "I have been crucified with Christ. I live, and yet no longer I, but Christ liveth in me." (Ga 2:20)



Again, the Son declared that the Father worked the works that he did — for he says: "The Father abiding in me doeth his works. Believe me, that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for his works' sake." (Joh 14:11) So Paul declared that the works he worked by the power of the Spirit were the works of Christ: "For I will not dare to speak of any things save those which Christ wrought through me, for the obedience of the Gentiles, by word and deed, in the power of signs and wonders, in the power of the Holy Spirit." (Ro 15:18-19)



But if there is such co-ordination and unity within the holy Trinity, who can separate either the Son from the Father, or the Spirit from the Son or from the Father himself? Who would be so audacious as to say that the Trinity is unlike itself and diverse in nature, or that the Son is in essence foreign from the Father, or the Spirit alien from the Son? But how are these things ? If one should make inquiry and ask again : How, when the Spirit is in us, the Son is said to be in us ? How, when the Son is in us, the Father is said to be in us ? Or how, when it is truly a Trinity, the Trinity is described as one? Or why, when the One is in us, the Trinity is said to be in us ? — let him first divide the radiance from the light, or wisdom from the wise, or let him tell how these things are. But if this is not to be done, much more is it the audacity of madmen to make such inquiries concerning God. For tradition, as we have said, does not declare the Godhead to us by demonstration in words, but by faith and by a pious and reverent use of reason. For if Paul proclaimed the saving Gospel of the Cross, "not in words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power" (1Co 2:4) ; and if in Paradise he heard "unspeakable words which it is not lawful for a man to utter" (2Co 12:4) : who can declare the holy Trinity itself? Nevertheless, we can meet this difficulty, primarily by faith and then by using the illustrations mentioned above, I mean the image and the radiance, fountain and river, essence and expression. As the Son is in the Spirit as in his own image, so also the Father is in the Son. For divine Scripture, by way of relieving the impossibility of explaining and apprehending these matters in words, has given us illustrations of this kind; that it may be lawful, because of the unbelief of presumptuous men, to speak more plainly, and to speak without danger, and to think legitimately, and to believe that there is one sanctification, which is derived from the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit.



As the Son is an only-begotten offspring, so also the Spirit, being given and sent from the Son, is himself one and not many, nor one from among many, but Only Spirit. As the Son, the living Word, is one, so must the vital activity and gift whereby he sanctifies and enlightens be one perfect and complete; which is said to proceed from the Father, because it is from the Word, who is confessed to be from the Father, that it shines forth and is sent and is given. The Son is sent from the Father; for he says, "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son." (Joh 3:16) The Son sends the Spirit ; "If I go away, I will send the Paraclete." (Joh 16:7) The Son glorifies the Father, saying: "Father, I have glorified thee." (Joh 17:4) The Spirit glorifies the Son; for he says: "He shall glorify me." (Joh 16:14) The Son says: "The things I heard from the Father speak I unto the world." (Joh 15:15) The Spirit takes of the Son ; "He shall take of mine and shall declare it unto you." (Joh 16:15) The Son came in the name of the Father; "I am come in my Father's name" (Joh 5:43) The Holy Spirit came in the name of the Son,"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name." (Joh 14:26)



But, beyond these sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept. Upon this the Church is founded, and he who should fall away from it would not be a Christian, and should no longer be so called. There is, then, a Trinity, holy and complete, confessed to be God in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, having nothing foreign or external mixed with it, not composed of one that creates and one that is originated, but all creative ; and it is consistent and in nature indivisible, and its activity is one. The Father does all things through the Word in the Holy Spirit. Thus the unity of the holy Trinity is preserved. Thus one God is preached in the Church, "who is over all, and through all, and in all" (Eph 4:6) "Over all", as Father, as beginning, as fountain; "through all", through the Word; "in all", in the Holy Spirit. It is a Trinity not only in name and form of speech, but in truth and actuality. For as the Father is he that is, so also his Word is one that is and God over all. And the Holy Spirit is not without actual existence, but exists and has true being. Less than these (Persons) the Catholic Church does not hold, lest she sink to the level of the modern Jews, imitators of Caiaphas, and to the level of Sabellius. Nor does she add to them by speculation, lest she be carried into the polytheism of the heathen. And that they may know this to be the faith of the Church, let them learn how the Lord, when sending forth the Apostles, ordered them to lay this foundation for the Church, saying: "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." (Mt 28:19) The Apostles went, and thus they taught; and this is the preaching that extends to the whole Church which is under heaven.

I do appreciate your frustration, but I went back a couple of posts and found this statement: "Why would there ever need to be three gods in order to handle who will be where when the work of the One God is found everywhere?"

The key words are "One God is found everywhere". So for example at the baptism, although God the Father is in heaven speaking and Jesus is on the earth getting baptized, and the HS is inbetween them, they are still homoousios because The Father is everywhere and in all, and so He can be in heaven speaking, but He can also at the same time be in Jesus coming out of the River Jordan and He can also at the same time be in the HS falling on Jesus. Jesus also is everywhere and in all, and so although he is coming out of the River Jordan, he can at the same time be in the Father speaking in heaven, and he can also at the same time be in the HS falling upon him. The HS is everywhere and in all, and so although he is inbetween the Father and Jesus, he can also, at the same time be in the Father speaking in heaven and he can also at the same time be in Jesus coming out of the River Jordan. Therefore because They can be everywhere at all times, They are homoousios.

Did I come close.

Regardless of how wrong I am and how wrong Mormons are, I really do want to get a handle on how you deal with the real events in the NT with the Trinity.

 

[Peter1000]

Edit: I didn't see the post above this one until it was too late. I had a long reply here, but NYCGuy has put it very succinctly and correctly (thank you).

Peter: Until you explain why you continue to post as though essence and physical space or mass are the same thing (and hence that homoousios refers to something to which it clearly does not refer), I'm afraid any conversation with you will be utterly pointless. I thought that yo posted earlier that you needed to figure this out, but now you are posting as though you already have and therefore it must mean what you think it means, even though it doesn't, and never has. Your premises are wrong, therefore your implications are wrong, and your conclusions are wrong. You are wrong. I feel as though I have done enough attempted explaining already in this thread, and I am beginning to suspect that you might not actually be reading what is written in replies to you (or else why would you continue to say "they can't be homoousios if they are in different places", as though I haven't already addressed several times why this is an irrelevant and nonsensical statement?), which makes me not want to engage with you anymore. If you are wanting to learn what Christianity teaches about God, that is one thing. But I do not post all this so that you can continue to post irrelevant replies on topics that have already been addressed over and over again.

I will leave this thread now with an excerpt from the first letter of our holy father St. Athanasius the Apostolic to Serapion, in which HH St. Athanasius discusses the Holy Trinity. I believe that everything HH writes is directly applicable to the present conversation and the overall topic of the thread, as the distance between his holy words and the confusion and delusion of Mormonism is starkly illustrated by the comparison of the content of the letter (including its many scriptural references) with the doctrines espoused by the Mormons who have posted in this thread in an attempt to present their religion as a form of Christianity. It is not.

Our father writes:

You who are without sense and in all things reckless, why do you not the rather cease your impertinent inquiries about the holy Trinity, and only believe that it exists ? You have the Apostle as your teacher for this, when he says: "It is necessary first to believe on God that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek after him." (Cf Heb 11) He did not say, "how he is," but only, "that he is".' But if they are not overwhelmed by this, let them say how the Father is, that so they may learn how his Word is. But it is absurd, they will say, to ask such questions about the Father. Let them hear, then, that it is also absurd to ask them concerning his Word.



Since, therefore, such an attempt is futile madness, nay, more than madness !, let no one ask such questions any more, or else let him learn only that which is in the Scriptures. For the illustrations they contain which bear upon this subject are sufficient and suitable. The Father is called fountain and light: "They have forsaken me the fountain of living water";(Jer 2:13) and again in Baruch, "Why, O Israel, art thou in the land of thine enemies ? Thou hast forsaken the fountain of wisdom"; (Bar 3:12) and, according to John: "Our God is light." (1Jo 1:5) But the Son, in contrast with the fountain, is called river: "The river of God is full of water." (Ps 65:9) In contrast with the light, he is called radiance, as Paul says: "Who, being the radiance of his glory and the image of his essence." (Heb 1:3) We may see in the Son the Spirit also by whom we are enlightened. "That he may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him, having the eyes of your heart enlightened". (Eph 1:17-18) But when we are enlightened by the Spirit, it is Christ who in him enlightens us. For it says: "There was the true light which lighteth every man coming into the world." (Joh 1:9) Again, as the Father is fountain and the Son is called river, we are said to drink of the Spirit. For it is written: "We are all made to drink of one Spirit." (1Co 12:13) But when we are made to drink of the Spirit, we drink of Christ. For "they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ" (1Co 10:4)



Again, as Christ is true Son, so we, when we receive the Spirit, are made sons. "For you have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but you have received the Spirit of adoption." (Ro 8:15) But if by the Spirit we are made sons, it is clear that it is in Christ we are called children of God. For: "So many as received him, to them gave he the power to become children of God." (Joh 1:12)



Then, as the Father, in Paul's words, is the "only wise", (Ro 16:27) the Son is his Wisdom: "Christ the Power of God and the Wisdom of God." (1Co 1:24) But as the Son is Wisdom, so we, receiving the "Spirit of Wisdom", (Eph 1:17) have the Son and are made wise in him. For thus it is written in the one hundred and forty-fifth psalm: "The Lord looseth the prisoners, the Lord maketh wise the blind." (Ps 145 7-8 Sept.) When the Holy Spirit is given to us ("Receive the Holy Spirit," said the Saviour), God is in us; for so John wrote: "If we love one another, God abideth in us ; hereby know we that we abide in him and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit." (1Jo 4:12-13) But when God is in us, the Son also is in us. For the Son himself said: "The Father and I will come and make our abode with him." (Joh 14:23)



Furthermore, as the Son is life — for he says "I am the life" (Joh 11:25) — we are said to be quickened by the Spirit. For it says: "He that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead shall quicken also your mortal bodies, through his Spirit that dwelleth in you. (Ro 8:11) But when we are quickened by the Spirit, Christ himself is said to live in us; for it says: "I have been crucified with Christ. I live, and yet no longer I, but Christ liveth in me." (Ga 2:20)



Again, the Son declared that the Father worked the works that he did — for he says: "The Father abiding in me doeth his works. Believe me, that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for his works' sake." (Joh 14:11) So Paul declared that the works he worked by the power of the Spirit were the works of Christ: "For I will not dare to speak of any things save those which Christ wrought through me, for the obedience of the Gentiles, by word and deed, in the power of signs and wonders, in the power of the Holy Spirit." (Ro 15:18-19)



But if there is such co-ordination and unity within the holy Trinity, who can separate either the Son from the Father, or the Spirit from the Son or from the Father himself? Who would be so audacious as to say that the Trinity is unlike itself and diverse in nature, or that the Son is in essence foreign from the Father, or the Spirit alien from the Son? But how are these things ? If one should make inquiry and ask again : How, when the Spirit is in us, the Son is said to be in us ? How, when the Son is in us, the Father is said to be in us ? Or how, when it is truly a Trinity, the Trinity is described as one? Or why, when the One is in us, the Trinity is said to be in us ? — let him first divide the radiance from the light, or wisdom from the wise, or let him tell how these things are. But if this is not to be done, much more is it the audacity of madmen to make such inquiries concerning God. For tradition, as we have said, does not declare the Godhead to us by demonstration in words, but by faith and by a pious and reverent use of reason. For if Paul proclaimed the saving Gospel of the Cross, "not in words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power" (1Co 2:4) ; and if in Paradise he heard "unspeakable words which it is not lawful for a man to utter" (2Co 12:4) : who can declare the holy Trinity itself? Nevertheless, we can meet this difficulty, primarily by faith and then by using the illustrations mentioned above, I mean the image and the radiance, fountain and river, essence and expression. As the Son is in the Spirit as in his own image, so also the Father is in the Son. For divine Scripture, by way of relieving the impossibility of explaining and apprehending these matters in words, has given us illustrations of this kind; that it may be lawful, because of the unbelief of presumptuous men, to speak more plainly, and to speak without danger, and to think legitimately, and to believe that there is one sanctification, which is derived from the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit.



As the Son is an only-begotten offspring, so also the Spirit, being given and sent from the Son, is himself one and not many, nor one from among many, but Only Spirit. As the Son, the living Word, is one, so must the vital activity and gift whereby he sanctifies and enlightens be one perfect and complete; which is said to proceed from the Father, because it is from the Word, who is confessed to be from the Father, that it shines forth and is sent and is given. The Son is sent from the Father; for he says, "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son." (Joh 3:16) The Son sends the Spirit ; "If I go away, I will send the Paraclete." (Joh 16:7) The Son glorifies the Father, saying: "Father, I have glorified thee." (Joh 17:4) The Spirit glorifies the Son; for he says: "He shall glorify me." (Joh 16:14) The Son says: "The things I heard from the Father speak I unto the world." (Joh 15:15) The Spirit takes of the Son ; "He shall take of mine and shall declare it unto you." (Joh 16:15) The Son came in the name of the Father; "I am come in my Father's name" (Joh 5:43) The Holy Spirit came in the name of the Son,"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name." (Joh 14:26)



But, beyond these sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept. Upon this the Church is founded, and he who should fall away from it would not be a Christian, and should no longer be so called. There is, then, a Trinity, holy and complete, confessed to be God in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, having nothing foreign or external mixed with it, not composed of one that creates and one that is originated, but all creative ; and it is consistent and in nature indivisible, and its activity is one. The Father does all things through the Word in the Holy Spirit. Thus the unity of the holy Trinity is preserved. Thus one God is preached in the Church, "who is over all, and through all, and in all" (Eph 4:6) "Over all", as Father, as beginning, as fountain; "through all", through the Word; "in all", in the Holy Spirit. It is a Trinity not only in name and form of speech, but in truth and actuality. For as the Father is he that is, so also his Word is one that is and God over all. And the Holy Spirit is not without actual existence, but exists and has true being. Less than these (Persons) the Catholic Church does not hold, lest she sink to the level of the modern Jews, imitators of Caiaphas, and to the level of Sabellius. Nor does she add to them by speculation, lest she be carried into the polytheism of the heathen. And that they may know this to be the faith of the Church, let them learn how the Lord, when sending forth the Apostles, ordered them to lay this foundation for the Church, saying: "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." (Mt 28:19) The Apostles went, and thus they taught; and this is the preaching that extends to the whole Church which is under heaven.

You say: Peter: Until you explain why you continue to post as though essence and physical space or mass are the same thing (and hence that homoousios refers to something to which it clearly does not refer)

This is also part of the problem. When the church fathers used the term "essence", to me it means they had no idea what God is really made of, so church fathers use a well known term that nobody can identify with anything. The closest that comes to my mind is wind, or vapor, of mist, or fluffy cloud. Well if this is the identifying pillar of what God is made of, we have just about nothing. How can you even start to discuss what God is if you can not define His being?

You have asked me what my definition of "substance" is and I tell you that to me "substance" has to be something real and has mass, which I think you laugh at outloud. Well then, tell me what "substance" is according to the fathers or the bible or whatever source you can come up with. Please, tell me what "substance" is to you? When the father's entire theology is based on the word "substance", I would think St. Athanasius could at least define it.

If the fathers' think God is a spirit essence of some sort, then how do they handle Jesus having a body of flesh and bone and spirit that actually does have substance or mass?

If God the Father and Jesus and the HS share the same substance (are homoousios) how do the fathers' handle the idea that the "substance" of God the Father is different than the "substance" of His Son Jesus Christ? If you think Their substance is the same, then tell me how that is?

Thank you again for the discussion.

 

[Peter1000]

Dzheremi has explained multiple times how the belief in homoousios (as understood by Trinitarians themselves) does not detract from the clear teaching of the Trinity that the 3 Persons are distinct from each other. You keep repeating an idea of homoousios that is not the way that Trinitarians understand it, and therefore you keep trying to force it into a box of your own making. It has been explained, in some detail, by dzheremi. Your understanding of it is not the understanding of Trinitarians, and you're arguing against a straw man.

The box that you are referring to is the bible, and not of my making. For your sake, I will state the box one more time. At the baptism it looks like the 3 are separate beings, because 1 is in heaven, 1 is on the earth, and 1 is between heaven and earth. So if They are homoousios, what connects them?

Is the answer that even though it looks like They are separate, they really are not because they are omnipresent with each other at all times?

 

[BigDaddy4]

You have asked me what my definition of "substance" is and I tell you that to me "substance" has to be something real and has mass, which you I think you laugh at outloud. Well then, tell me what "substance" is according to the fathers or the bible or whatever source you can come up with. Please, tell me what "substance" is to you? When the father's entire theology is based on the word "substance", I would think St. Athanasius could at least define it.

Your argument lacks substance, since, by your definition, it does not have mass and is not real.

 

[Peter1000]

Edit: I didn't see the post above this one until it was too late. I had a long reply here, but NYCGuy has put it very succinctly and correctly (thank you).

Peter: Until you explain why you continue to post as though essence and physical space or mass are the same thing (and hence that homoousios refers to something to which it clearly does not refer), I'm afraid any conversation with you will be utterly pointless. I thought that you posted earlier that you needed to figure this out, but now you are posting as though you already have and therefore it must mean what you think it means, even though it doesn't, and never has. Your premises are wrong, therefore your implications are wrong, and your conclusions are wrong. You are wrong. I feel as though I have done enough attempted explaining already in this thread, and I am beginning to suspect that you might not actually be reading what is written in replies to you (or else why would you continue to say "they can't be homoousios if they are in different places", as though I haven't already addressed several times why this is an irrelevant and nonsensical statement?), which makes me not want to engage with you anymore. If you are wanting to learn what Christianity teaches about God, that is one thing. But I do not post all this so that you can continue to post irrelevant replies on topics that have already been addressed over and over again.

I will leave this thread now with an excerpt from the first letter of our holy father St. Athanasius the Apostolic to Serapion, in which HH St. Athanasius discusses the Holy Trinity. I believe that everything HH writes is directly applicable to the present conversation and the overall topic of the thread, as the distance between his holy words and the confusion and delusion of Mormonism is starkly illustrated by the comparison of the content of the letter (including its many scriptural references) with the doctrines espoused by the Mormons who have posted in this thread in an attempt to present their religion as a form of Christianity. It is not.

Our father writes:

You who are without sense and in all things reckless, why do you not the rather cease your impertinent inquiries about the holy Trinity, and only believe that it exists ? You have the Apostle as your teacher for this, when he says: "It is necessary first to believe on God that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek after him." (Cf Heb 11) He did not say, "how he is," but only, "that he is".' But if they are not overwhelmed by this, let them say how the Father is, that so they may learn how his Word is. But it is absurd, they will say, to ask such questions about the Father. Let them hear, then, that it is also absurd to ask them concerning his Word.



Since, therefore, such an attempt is futile madness, nay, more than madness !, let no one ask such questions any more, or else let him learn only that which is in the Scriptures. For the illustrations they contain which bear upon this subject are sufficient and suitable. The Father is called fountain and light: "They have forsaken me the fountain of living water";(Jer 2:13) and again in Baruch, "Why, O Israel, art thou in the land of thine enemies ? Thou hast forsaken the fountain of wisdom"; (Bar 3:12) and, according to John: "Our God is light." (1Jo 1:5) But the Son, in contrast with the fountain, is called river: "The river of God is full of water." (Ps 65:9) In contrast with the light, he is called radiance, as Paul says: "Who, being the radiance of his glory and the image of his essence." (Heb 1:3) We may see in the Son the Spirit also by whom we are enlightened. "That he may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him, having the eyes of your heart enlightened". (Eph 1:17-18) But when we are enlightened by the Spirit, it is Christ who in him enlightens us. For it says: "There was the true light which lighteth every man coming into the world." (Joh 1:9) Again, as the Father is fountain and the Son is called river, we are said to drink of the Spirit. For it is written: "We are all made to drink of one Spirit." (1Co 12:13) But when we are made to drink of the Spirit, we drink of Christ. For "they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ" (1Co 10:4)



Again, as Christ is true Son, so we, when we receive the Spirit, are made sons. "For you have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but you have received the Spirit of adoption." (Ro 8:15) But if by the Spirit we are made sons, it is clear that it is in Christ we are called children of God. For: "So many as received him, to them gave he the power to become children of God." (Joh 1:12)



Then, as the Father, in Paul's words, is the "only wise", (Ro 16:27) the Son is his Wisdom: "Christ the Power of God and the Wisdom of God." (1Co 1:24) But as the Son is Wisdom, so we, receiving the "Spirit of Wisdom", (Eph 1:17) have the Son and are made wise in him. For thus it is written in the one hundred and forty-fifth psalm: "The Lord looseth the prisoners, the Lord maketh wise the blind." (Ps 145 7-8 Sept.) When the Holy Spirit is given to us ("Receive the Holy Spirit," said the Saviour), God is in us; for so John wrote: "If we love one another, God abideth in us ; hereby know we that we abide in him and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit." (1Jo 4:12-13) But when God is in us, the Son also is in us. For the Son himself said: "The Father and I will come and make our abode with him." (Joh 14:23)



Furthermore, as the Son is life — for he says "I am the life" (Joh 11:25) — we are said to be quickened by the Spirit. For it says: "He that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead shall quicken also your mortal bodies, through his Spirit that dwelleth in you. (Ro 8:11) But when we are quickened by the Spirit, Christ himself is said to live in us; for it says: "I have been crucified with Christ. I live, and yet no longer I, but Christ liveth in me." (Ga 2:20)



Again, the Son declared that the Father worked the works that he did — for he says: "The Father abiding in me doeth his works. Believe me, that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for his works' sake." (Joh 14:11) So Paul declared that the works he worked by the power of the Spirit were the works of Christ: "For I will not dare to speak of any things save those which Christ wrought through me, for the obedience of the Gentiles, by word and deed, in the power of signs and wonders, in the power of the Holy Spirit." (Ro 15:18-19)



But if there is such co-ordination and unity within the holy Trinity, who can separate either the Son from the Father, or the Spirit from the Son or from the Father himself? Who would be so audacious as to say that the Trinity is unlike itself and diverse in nature, or that the Son is in essence foreign from the Father, or the Spirit alien from the Son? But how are these things ? If one should make inquiry and ask again : How, when the Spirit is in us, the Son is said to be in us ? How, when the Son is in us, the Father is said to be in us ? Or how, when it is truly a Trinity, the Trinity is described as one? Or why, when the One is in us, the Trinity is said to be in us ? — let him first divide the radiance from the light, or wisdom from the wise, or let him tell how these things are. But if this is not to be done, much more is it the audacity of madmen to make such inquiries concerning God. For tradition, as we have said, does not declare the Godhead to us by demonstration in words, but by faith and by a pious and reverent use of reason. For if Paul proclaimed the saving Gospel of the Cross, "not in words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power" (1Co 2:4) ; and if in Paradise he heard "unspeakable words which it is not lawful for a man to utter" (2Co 12:4) : who can declare the holy Trinity itself? Nevertheless, we can meet this difficulty, primarily by faith and then by using the illustrations mentioned above, I mean the image and the radiance, fountain and river, essence and expression. As the Son is in the Spirit as in his own image, so also the Father is in the Son. For divine Scripture, by way of relieving the impossibility of explaining and apprehending these matters in words, has given us illustrations of this kind; that it may be lawful, because of the unbelief of presumptuous men, to speak more plainly, and to speak without danger, and to think legitimately, and to believe that there is one sanctification, which is derived from the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit.



As the Son is an only-begotten offspring, so also the Spirit, being given and sent from the Son, is himself one and not many, nor one from among many, but Only Spirit. As the Son, the living Word, is one, so must the vital activity and gift whereby he sanctifies and enlightens be one perfect and complete; which is said to proceed from the Father, because it is from the Word, who is confessed to be from the Father, that it shines forth and is sent and is given. The Son is sent from the Father; for he says, "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son." (Joh 3:16) The Son sends the Spirit ; "If I go away, I will send the Paraclete." (Joh 16:7) The Son glorifies the Father, saying: "Father, I have glorified thee." (Joh 17:4) The Spirit glorifies the Son; for he says: "He shall glorify me." (Joh 16:14) The Son says: "The things I heard from the Father speak I unto the world." (Joh 15:15) The Spirit takes of the Son ; "He shall take of mine and shall declare it unto you." (Joh 16:15) The Son came in the name of the Father; "I am come in my Father's name" (Joh 5:43) The Holy Spirit came in the name of the Son,"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name." (Joh 14:26)



But, beyond these sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept. Upon this the Church is founded, and he who should fall away from it would not be a Christian, and should no longer be so called. There is, then, a Trinity, holy and complete, confessed to be God in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, having nothing foreign or external mixed with it, not composed of one that creates and one that is originated, but all creative ; and it is consistent and in nature indivisible, and its activity is one. The Father does all things through the Word in the Holy Spirit. Thus the unity of the holy Trinity is preserved. Thus one God is preached in the Church, "who is over all, and through all, and in all" (Eph 4:6) "Over all", as Father, as beginning, as fountain; "through all", through the Word; "in all", in the Holy Spirit. It is a Trinity not only in name and form of speech, but in truth and actuality. For as the Father is he that is, so also his Word is one that is and God over all. And the Holy Spirit is not without actual existence, but exists and has true being. Less than these (Persons) the Catholic Church does not hold, lest she sink to the level of the modern Jews, imitators of Caiaphas, and to the level of Sabellius. Nor does she add to them by speculation, lest she be carried into the polytheism of the heathen. And that they may know this to be the faith of the Church, let them learn how the Lord, when sending forth the Apostles, ordered them to lay this foundation for the Church, saying: "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." (Mt 28:19) The Apostles went, and thus they taught; and this is the preaching that extends to the whole Church which is under heaven.

First paragraph:

Any one that questions or continues to question his theology is without sense and reckless. Athanasius is the same person who created the most confusing and elaborate creed about the nature of God, and then at the end, he states that anyone that does not agree to his creed is anathema to the church. Nice guy. If you don't agree you will be excomunicated from the church. Later, just after he died, but per his leadership and guidance, the church started to execute people if they disagreed with the orthodoxy of the day. Nice people.

Second paragraph:

Athanasius says: "Who, being the radiance of his glory and the image of his essence." (Heb 1:3)
Unfortunatley, Athanasius misquotes Heb. 1:3. Here is what Heb. 1:3 KJV says: 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person. So Athenasius uses the unknown, mystical "essence" instead of what the Word of God uses, which is "person". Some translations use"substance", some use "being", none used "essence". I believe the reason he uses essence, is that it fits the Trinity theology better than if Jesus is the express image
of God's person. The word "Person" seems to conote something that is real, something that has substance. Where the word "essence" conotes a wind on your face, a mist, a vapor, a fluffy cloud, but quite literally nothing. But essence is a much better word for the Coptic understanding of God, who is invisible, unknowable, unapproachable, so how could God have any substance or be a Person? Nice switch from something to nothing.

Athanasius tries hard to explain from the scriptures the relationship between God the Father and the Son. But the scriptures he chooses, uses the word God, which could refer to Jesus or His Father, so the relationship is not articulated well. It continues even today. It is very, very difficult to describe the Trinity in any detail. The details are simply lacking. That is why in the first paragraph Athanasius chides those that ask questions, because it becomes embarrasing to not be able to answer with any common sense. It is much easier to attack the questioner and throw them in jail, take their lands and holdings, and then execute them as a heretic.
Athanasius also quotes from Baruch, which he has placed in his bible, but is not in the bible today. Will he be taken from the Book of Life for adding to the bible?

Third paragraph OK.

Fourth paragraph.
Athanasius says that if we love one another, God and Jesus will come and abide with us. This paragraph teaches us the oneness of God and Jesus and us. We will be one with God and Jesus as they are one. Does this make us part of the Trinity?

Fifth paragraph OK.

Sixth paragraph OK.

Seventh paragraph.
Athanasius says: How, when the Spirit is in us, the Son is said to be in us ? How, when the Son is in us, the Father is said to be in us ? Or how, when it is truly a Trinity, the Trinity is described as one? Or why, when the One is in us, the Trinity is said to be in us ?
Again, my question if the Trinity is in us, are we not a part of the Trinity?

Eigth paragraph.
The unity of the substance is compromised if the Father sends the Son in His name. And the Son, when he goes, sends the HS in his name.

Ninth paragraph.
Athanasius says: There is, then, a Trinity, holy and complete, confessed to be God in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, having nothing foreign or external mixed with it, not composed of one that creates and one that is originated.

If the Trinity can be in all of us, then there are foreign things mixed with the Trinity. Can't get away from it.

 

[Peter1000]

Your argument lacks substance, since, by your definition, it does not have mass and is not real.

Again, I'm not sure what you are saying. My definition of "substance" is: something that has substance is real and has mass.

I'm not sure why my definition lacks substance? You say: by my definition, it does not have mass and is not real.

So, sorry, you must have read it wrong. My "substance" would conote something that is real and has mass.

What is your definition of "substance"?

 

[BigDaddy4]

Again, I'm not sure what you are saying. My definition of "substance" is: something that has substance is real and has mass.

I'm not sure why my definition lacks substance? You say: by my definition, it does not have mass and is not real.

So, sorry, you must have read it wrong. My "substance" would conote something that is real and has mass.

What is your definition of "substance"?

An argument can lack substance, right? But that same argument does not have "mass", which is included in your definition of substance. Therefore, your argument, lacking the requisite physical mass, lacks substance and is not real.

Or, an argument, backed up with actual facts, yet lacking physical mass, can be said to have substance. The trinity being consubstantial is similar. None of the members have to have physical mass for it to be true.

Perhaps you should adjust your definition.

 

[Peter1000]

An argument can lack substance, right? But that same argument does not have "mass", which is included in your definition of substance. Therefore, your argument, lacking the requisite physical mass, lacks substance and is not real.

Or, an argument, backed up with actual facts, yet lacking physical mass, can be said to have substance. The trinity being consubstantial is similar. None of the members have to have physical mass for it to be true.

Perhaps you should adjust your definition.

I have tried to give you my definition of "substance". Give me your definition of substance and let's compare.

When you define substance, it is in relationship to this: The 3 members of the Trinity are consubstantial because they share the same "substance". They are homoousios because They share the same "substance".
Now, what is your definition of "substance". Maybe I will have to change my definition.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I'm not sure it really matters that Jesus Christ has a body or not. It is obvious 'why' He would have a body, because He lived as a man.

Before this earth, He did not have a body. So, I'm not sure why this is an issue or am I missing something.

 

[BigDaddy4]

I have tried to give you my definition of "substance". Give me your definition of substance and let's compare.

When you define substance, it is in relationship to this: The 3 members of the Trinity are consubstantial because they share the same "substance". They are homoousios because They share the same "substance".
Now, what is your definition of "substance". Maybe I will have to change my definition.

dzheremi and others have already defined what it is. There is no need to attempt to improve on it when you cannot grasp what has already been stated.

 

[Peter1000]

I'm not sure it really matters that Jesus Christ has a body or not. It is obvious 'why' He would have a body, because He lived as a man.

Before this earth, He did not have a body. So, I'm not sure why this is an issue or am I missing something.

There you go again, agreeing with me. Before this world, Jesus had a body of spirit. Then when he came to earth, he added to that spirit, a body of flesh and bone. And has that perfect body of flesh and bone and spirit today.

The Trinity doctrine flys or falls on the idea that the 3 members are consubstantial/homoousios. IOW They are 3 Persons in 1 God, not confounding the Persons, or dividing the substance. That is the central them of the Trinity doctrine. "not dividing the substance".

So whatever that substance is, it must be the same substance, because They all share it. It is difficult for the Trinity doctrine to explain that Jesus has 1 kind of substance, and God the Father and the HS have another kind of substance. If that is the case, which you know it is, the Trinity doctrine collapses.

If the Trinity doctrine collapses, then the most reasonable other explanation that you can turn to is the Mormon POV. It says that the 3 members are separate and distinct, and have Their own substance, whatever that is. . This doctrine would be OK with Jesus having a body of flesh and bone and spirit, and the Father having a spirit body, and the HS having a spirit body. But it tends towards having the same kind of substance. So if Jesus has a body of flesh and bone and spirit, the doctrine suggests that the Father also has a body of flesh and bone and spirit. Remember, that Their bodies of flesh and bone and spirit are far, far, advanced from a mortal body of flesh and bone and spirit. Their bodies are perfect, resurrected, immortal, exalted ( which means that it is much more refined, almost as if it were pure spirit). Way, Way different from mortal, but none the less flesh and bone and spirit.