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

[Peter1000]

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.

Nobody has defined "substance" except me, and you all have laughed at my definition.

So man up and don't be afraid to offer your definition of "substance". OR point me to a post where dzheremi has defined it and I will apologize for missing it.

 

[Rescued One]

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.

Aren't you the same substance as other humans?

 

[dzheremi]

General comment before I go back unfollowing this thread so that I don't become uncharitable out of frustration: For the purposes of discussion like this one, the term "essence" can be understood in the same way that we might use it 'secularly', i.e., about ourselves. You can describe any person in many different ways -- you can talk about how they act, what they do, what they look like, etc., but can you ever really describe their essence? No, not really. Because essence is something that is internal to a person, and while it may be appreciated in some sense by appreciating the way that they interact with you and the world (i.e., "this person is good hearted" or some such), it can never really be exhaustively elucidated. You can't 'see' it, so to speak. It is carried in each person as something that is their own.

So of course the fathers used the term "essence" (well, ousia, which can mean 'essence' or 'substance', apparently) to describe God -- they were smart enough to know that you cannot precisely describe a divine, omnipotent, transcendent God in mere words, so they used the closest that they could to describe the internal relation between the Persons. This is why I have said in other posts that the claim about the three Persons being of same essence is a claim about their 'internal stuff', because that's as close as you can get before you start heading into things that cannot be described in language (and, of course, because that is consistent with the actual meaning of the term 'ousia')

 

[Peter1000]

General comment before I go back unfollowing this thread so that I don't become uncharitable out of frustration: For the purposes of discussion like this one, the term "essence" can be understood in the same way that we might use it 'secularly', i.e., about ourselves. You can describe any person in many different ways -- you can talk about how they act, what they do, what they look like, etc., but can you ever really describe their essence? No, not really. Because essence is something that is eternal to a person, and while it may be appreciated in some sense by appreciating the way that they interact with you and the world (i.e., "this person is good hearted" or some such), it can never really be exhaustively elucidated. You can't 'see' it, so to speak. It is carried in each person as something that is their own.

So of course the fathers used the term "essence" (well, ousia, which can mean 'essence' or 'substance', apparently) to describe God -- they were smart enough to know that you cannot precisely describe a divine, omnipotent, transcendent God in mere words, so they used the closest that they could to describe the internal relation between the Persons. This is why I have said in other posts that the claim about the three Persons being of same essence is a claim about their 'internal stuff', because that's as close as you can get before you start heading into things that cannot be described in language (and, of course, because that is consistent with the actual meaning of the term 'ousia')

I can appreciate the difficulties the fathers had in identifying the substance of the Trinity. So they called it essence. Which you say is practically indefinable. Well, that was OK until JS came along and said that God and Jesus have resurrected bodies and the HS has a body of spirit. He knew that because he saw them and they told him so. So now the whole Trinity doctrine comes under scrutiny from a farm boy in upstate New York.

From a Mormon POV, it is not difficult to describe the substance of Jesus, because it is contained in the bible. So let's start there. Here is what Jesus is made of. Flesh and bone and spirit. His body, with the marks still in them, was raised from the dead and with this body he ascended to his God and Father. He now sits on the right hand of God with a body of flesh and bone and spirit. Jesus's body, however, is far advanced in comparison to our mortal bodies of flesh and bone and spirit. His is a perfect, resurrected, immortal, exalted (which means a very refined flesh and bone, almost pure spirit) body that is nonetheless flesh and bone and spirit.

Now that we know the substance that Jesus is made of, does that help us figure out what the substance of the other 2 are made of?

 

[Peter1000]

Aren't you the same substance as other humans?

Yes I am. That substance is flesh and bone and spirit. But if there are 7,000,000,000 people on the earth, we all are made of the same kind of substance. But we all do not share the same substance, that cannot be divided.
IOW there are not 7,000,000,000 persons in 1 body, there are 7,000,000,000 persons in 7,000,000,000 bodies.

I believe the substance of the Trinty is definable too.

 

[dzheremi]

I can appreciate the difficulties the fathers had in identifying the substance of the Trinity. So they called it essence. Which you say is practically indefinable. Well, that was OK until JS came along and said that God and Jesus have resurrected bodies and the HS has a body of spirit.

No, no...it's still okay now. Joseph Smith can say whatever he wants. It does not change the traditional ways that we have to talk about God.

(Also: Why would the Father have a resurrected body? Did the Father die? Are Mormons Patripassionists?)

He knew that because he saw them and they told him so. So now the whole Trinity doctrine comes under scrutiny from a farm boy in upstate New York.

Uh...no. No it doesn't. Not for Christians, anyway.

From a Mormon POV, it is not difficult to describe the substance of Jesus, because it is contained in the bible. So let's start there. Here is what Jesus is made of. Flesh and bone and spirit.

You are not asking for the Mormon point of view though, are you? I thought you wanted to understand how Christians understood these things? Presumably you already know the Mormon view, since you're a Mormon.

Now that we know the substance that Jesus is made of, does that help us figure out what the substance of the other 2 are made of?

No, it doesn't, because you still don't understand the terms that you are using. You are talking about substance ('ousia') and then referring to physical descriptions and a soul. You might as well be saying Jesus had eyes and hair and teeth. Congratulations, you are correct -- but that is certainly not what we are talking about when we say that the three Persons of the Holy Trinity are homoousios, because again (for the fifty millionth time) the claim that they are homoousios is not a claim about physical matter. At all. Period. That's just not what we're talking about. Again, it is a claim about their internal relation, because they are all 'composed' (for lack of a better way to put it) of one and the same divinity. Recall, for instance, how St. Athanasius the Apostolic, in the letter to Serapion posted earlier, asked rhetorically how anyone could be so audacious as to say that the Trinity is unlike itself, diverse in nature, with the Son being in essence foreign from the Father or the Spirit alien from the Son. This can't be, if you're going to have a Trinity and be a monotheist. So we say that they are homoousios, that the Persons are not in fact diverse in essence, but share the same essence/substance.

So I don't believe you actually know what Jesus Christ is made of, because your understanding of God apparently begins and ends with "He has a physical body" (even though we're not talking about physical bodies). You are still treating substance/essence/ousia as some kind of synonym for "physical body taking up physical space and having mass", which again, no. No, that's not what any of this is about.

Why you're doing that, I don't know (you haven't explained, even after I asked you several times to please explain so that we could stop going around in circles), but until or unless you stop doing that, you're never going to understand Christianity, or the differences between the Christian belief in God and the polytheistic Mormon trinity of three separate gods.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I can appreciate the difficulties the fathers had in identifying the substance of the Trinity. So they called it essence. Which you say is practically indefinable. Well, that was OK until JS came along and said that God and Jesus have resurrected bodies and the HS has a body of spirit. He knew that because he saw them and they told him so. So now the whole Trinity doctrine comes under scrutiny from a farm boy in upstate New York.

From a Mormon POV, it is not difficult to describe the substance of Jesus, because it is contained in the bible. So let's start there. Here is what Jesus is made of. Flesh and bone and spirit. His body, with the marks still in them, was raised from the dead and with this body he ascended to his God and Father. He now sits on the right hand of God with a body of flesh and bone and spirit. Jesus's body, however, is far advanced in comparison to our mortal bodies of flesh and bone and spirit. His is a perfect, resurrected, immortal, exalted (which means a very refined flesh and bone, almost pure spirit) body that is nonetheless flesh and bone and spirit.

Now that we know the substance that Jesus is made of, does that help us figure out what the substance of the other 2 are made of?

When the Israelites and Moses were fleeing from Egypt, God formed Himself into a pillar of fire so they could travel through the night and not get lost. And a cloud to guide them by day. So how does that fit in with your 'body' theory?

Exodus 13:20
20 Then they set out from Succoth and camped in Etham on the edge of the wilderness. 21 The LORD was going before them in a pillar of cloud by day to lead them on the way, and in a pillar of fire by night to give them light, that they might travel by day and by night. 22He did not take away the pillar of cloud by day, nor the pillar of fire by night, from before the people.

 

[Rescued One]

Yes I am. That substance is flesh and bone and spirit. But if there are 7,000,000,000 people on the earth, we all are made of the same kind of substance. But we all do not share the same substance, that cannot be divided.
IOW there are not 7,000,000,000 persons in 1 body, there are 7,000,000,000 persons in 7,000,000,000 bodies.

I believe the substance of the Trinty is definable too.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are uncreated beings. Everything else is created. Therefore, we aren't the same substance as God.

 

[Peter1000]

No, no...it's still okay now. Joseph Smith can say whatever he wants. It does not change the traditional ways that we have to talk about God.

(Also: Why would the Father have a resurrected body? Did the Father die? Are Mormons Patripassionists?)



Uh...no. No it doesn't. Not for Christians, anyway.



You are not asking for the Mormon point of view though, are you? I thought you wanted to understand how Christians understood these things? Presumably you already know the Mormon view, since you're a Mormon.



No, it doesn't, because you still don't understand the terms that you are using. You are talking about substance ('ousia') and then referring to physical descriptions and a soul. You might as well be saying Jesus had eyes and hair and teeth. Congratulations, you are correct -- but that is certainly not what we are talking about when we say that the three Persons of the Holy Trinity are homoousios, because again (for the fifty millionth time) the claim that they are homoousios is not a claim about physical matter. At all. Period. That's just not what we're talking about. Again, it is a claim about their internal relation, because they are all 'composed' (for lack of a better way to put it) of one and the same divinity. Recall, for instance, how St. Athanasius the Apostolic, in the letter to Serapion posted earlier, asked rhetorically how anyone could be so audacious as to say that the Trinity is unlike itself, diverse in nature, with the Son being in essence foreign from the Father or the Spirit alien from the Son. This can't be, if you're going to have a Trinity and be a monotheist. So we say that they are homoousios, that the Persons are not in fact diverse in essence, but share the same essence/substance.

So I don't believe you actually know what Jesus Christ is made of, because your understanding of God apparently begins and ends with "He has a physical body" (even though we're not talking about physical bodies). You are still treating substance/essence/ousia as some kind of synonym for "physical body taking up physical space and having mass", which again, no. No, that's not what any of this is about.

Why you're doing that, I don't know (you haven't explained, even after I asked you several times to please explain so that we could stop going around in circles), but until or unless you stop doing that, you're never going to understand Christianity, or the differences between the Christian belief in God and the polytheistic Mormon trinity of three separate gods.

you say: Again, it is a claim about their internal relation, because they are all 'composed' (for lack of a better way to put it) of one and the same divinity.

So Their internal relation is composed of the same Divinity? OK, Mormonism says that all 3 are divine. I could even say they are homoousiosly divine. Does that now mean that Mormonism and The Coptic religion agree about the nature of the Godhead/Trinity?

you say: So I don't believe you actually know what Jesus Christ is made of, because your understanding of God apparently begins and ends with "He has a physical body" (even though we're not talking about physical bodies). You are still treating substance/essence/ousia as some kind of synonym for "physical body taking up physical space and having mass".

I thought what we are talking about is whether the Father and Son and HS are homoousios? Well, if 1 of the members has a physical body, then we have to be talking about physical bodies. If not then we will never get to the bottom of whether they are truely homoousios.

You mentioned above that we are talking about their internal relation? Why would our discussion about whether They are homoousios focus just on Their internal relation?

You say that I am still treating substance/essence/oisia as some kind of synonym for "physical bodies, taking up physical space and having mass". Well if 1 of the members has a physical body, there would be a natural assumption that it will take up physical space and have mass. We have to know that is true, in order to get to the bottom of whether the 3 are homoousios.

I don't know, nor does anyone, what "essence" is. It is not used in the bible and truely is an unknowable thing.

However, when someone uses the word "susbstance", it usually has some realness associated with it. In your case, however, substance is as indefinable as "essence". Mormonism has no problems defining substance, it is something that is real and takes up physical space and has mass.

I'm sure the problem we are having is your vew of God being invisible, untangible, unknowable, unapproachable, etc., etc., etc. So to talk about God taking up physical space and having mass is max heretical. So you throw around empty words like homoousia and substance and essence and oisia and all the eastern mystical words you can come up with to try to explain God and the Trinity and you will never be able to do it as you can see from our conversation. It is foreign to logic, it is foreign to the bible.

In fact the word "homoousios" was probably introduced by a mass murderer - Constantine, to the reverend bishops at the council of Nicea, so I have little respect that "homoousios" is a good word (in fact unbiblical, and bordering on Sabellian) to describe God.

 

[Peter1000]

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are uncreated beings. Everything else is created. Therefore, we aren't the same substance as God.

We are the same substance as God according to the bible. In Luke 24:39 Jesus himself tells us, after his resurrection he was still made of flesh and bone. To confirm that he was not just a spirit, Jesus had the people touch him and he ate with them.

Now every time I have this discussion I let people know that our bodies of flesh and bone and spirit are mortal. Jesus's body is far advance from ours. His body is a perfect, resurrected, immortal, and exalted (meaning it is of refined matter that is close to pure spirit) but nonetheless it is flesh and bone and spirit.

When we are resurrrected, our vile bodies will be changed into a flesh and bone and spirit body just like Jesus's.

So either Jesus was created too, or a created, mortal body can be changed by the power of God into a perfect, resurrected, immortal, and exalted body of flesh and bone and spirit just like Jeusus's beautiful body.

The bible is full of this doctrine.

 

[mmksparbud]

We are the same substance as God according to the bible.

When you say something like that, please state where it says that.

Are you saying God was formed of mud and some other God breathed life into Him????

 

[Peter1000]

When the Israelites and Moses were fleeing from Egypt, God formed Himself into a pillar of fire so they could travel through the night and not get lost. And a cloud to guide them by day. So how does that fit in with your 'body' theory?

Exodus 13:20
20 Then they set out from Succoth and camped in Etham on the edge of the wilderness. 21 The LORD was going before them in a pillar of cloud by day to lead them on the way, and in a pillar of fire by night to give them light, that they might travel by day and by night. 22He did not take away the pillar of cloud by day, nor the pillar of fire by night, from before the people.

To Mormons at this time in history. God the Father had a perfect, immortal, exalted body of flesh and bone and spirit. Jesus had not yet come to earth and so he had a body of spirit only.

As for the pillar of fire and the cloud, in both instances God the Father and Jesus certainly could withstand the fire of the pillar and be in the cloud too. They were not the fire or the cloud, but would have been inside the fire and the cloud. So no problem.

 

[mmksparbud]

When the Israelites and Moses were fleeing from Egypt, God formed Himself into a pillar of fire so they could travel through the night and not get lost. And a cloud to guide them by day. So how does that fit in with your 'body' theory?

Exodus 13:20
20 Then they set out from Succoth and camped in Etham on the edge of the wilderness. 21 The LORD was going before them in a pillar of cloud by day to lead them on the way, and in a pillar of fire by night to give them light, that they might travel by day and by night. 22He did not take away the pillar of cloud by day, nor the pillar of fire by night, from before the people.

Not to mention the burning bush that did not burn.

Exo_3:4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.

Exo_25:22 And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.
Lev_16:2 And the LORD said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place within the vail before the mercy seat, which is upon the ark; that he die not: for I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat.

He seems fond of fire and clouds.

 

[dzheremi]

you say: Again, it is a claim about their internal relation, because they are all 'composed' (for lack of a better way to put it) of one and the same divinity.

So Their internal relation is composed of the same Divinity? OK, Mormonism says that all 3 are divine. I could even say they are homoousiosly divine. Does that now mean that Mormonism and The Coptic religion agree about the nature of the Godhead/Trinity?

Saying that they are homoousios is saying that they are all of the same divinity (so 'homoousiosly divine' is redundant), and elsewhere in this thread, one of your fellow believers in Mormonism specifically stated that your faith disagrees with the Christian doctrine concerning the Holy Trinity in this regard (user Jane_Doe, in post #113 on page 6 of this thread says that Mormonism rejects the idea that the Persons of the Trinity are homoousios), so I have to either conclude that she was lying then (which would be an odd thing to do, if she were trying to convince Christians who do believe in this idea, as all do, that Mormonism is Christian), or you are lying now. Either way, that doesn't make things look too good for the Mormon faith.

And of course you do not agree with the Orthodox Church, or any other traditional church, regarding the nature of God. We have seen already how even when presented with the solid Biblical and Patristic evidence of the Holy Trinity as three Persons who are homoousios, you have adopted this term to mean something radically different than what the presented evidence says it means, and even after having it explained to you many times why your understanding is faulty and is leading to faulty conclusions, you continue to press those conclusions and that understanding anyway because it is what is in line with particularly Mormon doctrine, such as the polytheistic Mormon trinity. This is a bit like how you might talk to some Hindus who are willing to accept Christ as an avatar of God because that is in line with their preexisting religious system, or even better Bahais who claim to accept all past religions as revelations of the same religion, but of course in doing so, must do great violence to each religious tradition they attempt to incorporate into their highly syncretic religious worldview. It seems obvious from my discussion with you and other Mormons in this thread (in addition to Mormons in real life) that Mormonism does the same with all Christian vocabulary, historical personages, writings, and ideas it incorporates into itself.

So, no, it would not mean that. If you did agree with Christianity regarding the nature of God, you would leave Mormonism. The fact that you see them as reconcilable to Mormonism shows that you are still viewing all Christian concepts through the Mormon lens, not actually adopting the theology of any Christian church or tradition (just the words or the concepts, so as to exploit them to make Mormonism seem 'more Christian' to those who don't know any better).

I thought what we are talking about is whether the Father and Son and HS are homoousios?

We are.

Well, if 1 of the members has a physical body, then we have to be talking about physical bodies. If not then we will never get to the bottom of whether they are truely homoousios.

No it doesn't. Again, homoousios is not a claim about physical matter. It is a claim about their internal substance. Were this not the case, then why or how would there have been an incarnation in the first place? If they already have physical bodies, then they are already incarnate.

You mentioned above that we are talking about their internal relation? Why would our discussion about whether They are homoousios focus just on Their internal relation?

Because that's what homoousios means. You are the one who is using it in a way that is foreign to any early Christian writing. It does not mean and has never meant 'possessing a physical body'. Again, for some reason, you are thinking that 'ousia' means 'physical body'. It does not. It never has. It never will.

You say that I am still treating substance/essence/oisia as some kind of synonym for "physical bodies, taking up physical space and having mass". Well if 1 of the members has a physical body, there would be a natural assumption that it will take up physical space and have mass. We have to know that is true, in order to get to the bottom of whether the 3 are homoousios.

Of course Christ's body has physical mass and takes up space, but what you are not understanding is that no Christian anywhere, ever, has said or says "The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one God because they all have physical bodies". That's not even something the other Mormons in this thread have said. Jane_Doe and others told me that Mormonism conceives of the their trinity as being one God because they are all three united in purpose, not because they all have physical bodies. So perhaps you wrong in your own religion, too. I don't know or care. The take home point is that for Christians, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are homoousios, meaning of one substance/essence, composed of one and the same divinity equally belonging to all. They are not three separate gods as in the Mormon polytheistic trinity (which is united not by their one ousia but by their purpose), but truly one God in three Persons.

I don't know, nor does anyone, what "essence" is. It is not used in the bible

It is actually used twice in the NT, in the Gospel according to St. Luke, but in a different sense than we are using it here (because another translation of ousia into English is 'property', in the sense of estate or inheritance).

And of course you can't know what it is. I already mentioned that this is the entire reason this word was used by the fathers in drafting the Creed.

However, when someone uses the word "susbstance", it usually has some realness associated with it.

So things aren't real unless they are physically tangible? Hmm...well that kind of puts a new spin on the oft-cited Mormon testimony of "burning in the bosom" that supposedly tells its people that the Mormon religion is true (from Doctrine & Covenants 9:8, I gather). I guess that's not real, and therefore no one should be Mormon.

Hmm. Works for me. Good thing for Christians we do not have this materialistic view of life and religion. As the Savior tells us, "blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believed".

In your case, however, substance is as indefinable as "essence".

Well, that's more a property of the Greek language as it relates to other languages which have sought to translate the term "ousia" into equivalent terms in their own vocabulary. Substance in other contexts is definable (note that heretics such as Paul of Samosata got in trouble while using this same term "ousia" but not defining it according to what the Church had received; so rather than saying it is somehow not definable, it is better to say that it is itself a definition, but a definition that must be used properly, i.e., not used to separate the Persons of the Holy Trinity from one another, or to deny them their own distinct personhood within the Holy Trinity, as Sabellius did), but we know better than to try to define God in His essence when we know that this is impossible (just as it is impossible for us to do regarding regular people, I should add; that's a point I tried to make earlier, as well). Heck, a whole school of negative (apophatic) theology, of ancient provenance, defines God chiefly by what cannot be said about Him, for precisely this reason. (Though it is less common in the West than the corresponding positive, or cataphatic, theology; my own Church's tradition embraces aspects of both.)

Mormonism has no problems defining substance, it is something that is real and takes up physical space and has mass.

And that is a definition of Mormonism, not of Christianity.

I'm sure the problem we are having is your vew of God being invisible, untangible, unknowable, unapproachable, etc., etc., etc.

No, the problem really is that you're insisting on your peculiar Mormon definition of a term that your group doesn't even use (and openly rejects, according to what other Mormons have written in this thread), while seemingly pretending to ask about the Christian definition. And even when you are told that the two are like oil and water, you are continuing on in this vein as though it's proving some kind of point. It's quite tiresome and transparent.

So to talk about God taking up physical space and having mass is max heretical.

Not at all. Christ Jesus our Lord and God had a human body which took up physical space and had mass. There, I wrote it myself. Nothing heretical about it. The fact remains that this is not what homoousios is referring to.

So you throw around empty words like homoousia and substance and essence and oisia and all the eastern mystical words you can come up with to try to explain God and the Trinity and you will never be able to do it as you can see from our conversation. It is foreign to logic, it is foreign to the bible.

Hmm...for some fancy, Eastern 'mystical' words, all of Western Christianity that still remains today has had no problem accepting them, using their equivalents in their own languages, etc. It seems that you are trying to now make this conversation into something it isn't. I have no problem praying that the Persons of the Holy Trinity are consubstantial, even though that's not an 'Eastern' word. You're being really silly.

And you seem to be confusing 'ousia' with my attempt to 'explain' the Christian view of God without realizing that this term is part of the traditional Christian creed which is the explanation of what Christians believe about God, and how we understand God in our religion. So there's no getting rid of it and explaining anything, because once the Persons are not homoousios, you no longer have the One God of Christianity, but some other thing (as in Mormonism).

So your problem is not with me and the deficiencies of my explanation (though I freely grant that there are some; who can say too much about these things without falling into some kind of confusion? It is better, as St. Athanasius counseled Serapion, to believe that it is so, rather than to prod into things we can't possibly know anyway), but with the faith affirmed at Nicaea, and again at Constantinople, and again at Ephesus. And I frankly am not surprised that you have this problem, given the anti-Christ and anti-Christian theology that you have espoused in this thread. Take it up with the fathers, not with me. I think you'll find out who is preaching what if you take the time to read them, instead of reading Mormon documents. Again, you either want the Christian viewpoint or you do not.

In fact the word "homoousios" was probably introduced by a mass murderer - Constantine, to the reverend bishops at the council of Nicea, so I have little respect that "homoousios" is a good word (in fact unbiblical, and bordering on Sabellian) to describe God.

Wrong. It was used by heretic and Orthodox alike, and its use by both predates the Council of Nicaea. It was probably first used by second century gnostics, but their use of it had no direct relation to the later Christian usage (as far as I can tell, the gnostics used it to talk about procession, rather than substance/essence). It was taken up with an exact Orthodox exposition by St. Athanasius the Apostolic and became thereafter synonymous with the definition of Nicaean Orthodoxy, since it was this wording that made it into the original Greek of the Creed (which states that Christ is ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί) over other formulas that were out there (e.g., the 'homoiousian' group and other wordings preferred by others).

 

[ToBeLoved]

We are the same substance as God according to the bible. In Luke 24:39 Jesus himself tells us, after his resurrection he was still made of flesh and bone. To confirm that he was not just a spirit, Jesus had the people touch him and he ate with them.

Now every time I have this discussion I let people know that our bodies of flesh and bone and spirit are mortal. Jesus's body is far advance from ours. His body is a perfect, resurrected, immortal, and exalted (meaning it is of refined matter that is close to pure spirit) but nonetheless it is flesh and bone and spirit.

When we are resurrrected, our vile bodies will be changed into a flesh and bone and spirit body just like Jesus's.

So either Jesus was created too, or a created, mortal body can be changed by the power of God into a perfect, resurrected, immortal, and exalted body of flesh and bone and spirit just like Jeusus's beautiful body.

The bible is full of this doctrine.

Just because Jesus body was of some type of form that does not mean that He stayed that way after the ressurection. You are taking liberties in your understanding here.

Just as Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not the same form. Form has nothing to do with being God as a matter of fact, God has taken on other forms.

 

[Peter1000]

Just because Jesus body was of some type of form that does not mean that He stayed that way after the ressurection. You are taking liberties in your understanding here.

Just as Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not the same form. Form has nothing to do with being God as a matter of fact, God has taken on other forms.

You would be taking liberties too, if you want to say that he changed his form after his resurrection and ascension.
There is no indication that he did and nothing in the bible that said he did. So the best position is what the bible said and as of the resurrection and ascension, he had a resurrected, perfect, immortal, and exalted body of flesh and bone and spirit., says the bible.

What other form have you ever seen God except in the form of man? We know Jesus was in spirit form before his earthly ministry, and in a from of flesh and bone and spirit after his ascension. But whatever the substance, the form was that of a man.

 

[Peter1000]

Saying that they are homoousios is saying that they are all of the same divinity (so 'homoousiosly divine' is redundant), and elsewhere in this thread, one of your fellow believers in Mormonism specifically stated that your faith disagrees with the Christian doctrine concerning the Holy Trinity in this regard (user Jane_Doe, in post #113 on page 6 of this thread says that Mormonism rejects the idea that the Persons of the Trinity are homoousios), so I have to either conclude that she was lying then (which would be an odd thing to do, if she were trying to convince Christians who do believe in this idea, as all do, that Mormonism is Christian), or you are lying now. Either way, that doesn't make things look too good for the Mormon faith.

And of course you do not agree with the Orthodox Church, or any other traditional church, regarding the nature of God. We have seen already how even when presented with the solid Biblical and Patristic evidence of the Holy Trinity as three Persons who are homoousios, you have adopted this term to mean something radically different than what the presented evidence says it means, and even after having it explained to you many times why your understanding is faulty and is leading to faulty conclusions, you continue to press those conclusions and that understanding anyway because it is what is in line with particularly Mormon doctrine, such as the polytheistic Mormon trinity. This is a bit like how you might talk to some Hindus who are willing to accept Christ as an avatar of God because that is in line with their preexisting religious system, or even better Bahais who claim to accept all past religions as revelations of the same religion, but of course in doing so, must do great violence to each religious tradition they attempt to incorporate into their highly syncretic religious worldview. It seems obvious from my discussion with you and other Mormons in this thread (in addition to Mormons in real life) that Mormonism does the same with all Christian vocabulary, historical personages, writings, and ideas it incorporates into itself.

So, no, it would not mean that. If you did agree with Christianity regarding the nature of God, you would leave Mormonism. The fact that you see them as reconcilable to Mormonism shows that you are still viewing all Christian concepts through the Mormon lens, not actually adopting the theology of any Christian church or tradition (just the words or the concepts, so as to exploit them to make Mormonism seem 'more Christian' to those who don't know any better).



We are.



No it doesn't. Again, homoousios is not a claim about physical matter. It is a claim about their internal substance. Were this not the case, then why or how would there have been an incarnation in the first place? If they already have physical bodies, then they are already incarnate.



Because that's what homoousios means. You are the one who is using it in a way that is foreign to any early Christian writing. It does not mean and has never meant 'possessing a physical body'. Again, for some reason, you are thinking that 'ousia' means 'physical body'. It does not. It never has. It never will.



Of course Christ's body has physical mass and takes up space, but what you are not understanding is that no Christian anywhere, ever, has said or says "The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one God because they all have physical bodies". That's not even something the other Mormons in this thread have said. Jane_Doe and others told me that Mormonism conceives of the their trinity as being one God because they are all three united in purpose, not because they all have physical bodies. So perhaps you wrong in your own religion, too. I don't know or care. The take home point is that for Christians, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are homoousios, meaning of one substance/essence, composed of one and the same divinity equally belonging to all. They are not three separate gods as in the Mormon polytheistic trinity (which is united not by their one ousia but by their purpose), but truly one God in three Persons.



It is actually used twice in the NT, in the Gospel according to St. Luke, but in a different sense than we are using it here (because another translation of ousia into English is 'property', in the sense of estate or inheritance).

And of course you can't know what it is. I already mentioned that this is the entire reason this word was used by the fathers in drafting the Creed.



So things aren't real unless they are physically tangible? Hmm...well that kind of puts a new spin on the oft-cited Mormon testimony of "burning in the bosom" that supposedly tells its people that the Mormon religion is true (from Doctrine & Covenants 9:8, I gather). I guess that's not real, and therefore no one should be Mormon.

Hmm. Works for me. Good thing for Christians we do not have this materialistic view of life and religion. As the Savior tells us, "blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believed".



Well, that's more a property of the Greek language as it relates to other languages which have sought to translate the term "ousia" into equivalent terms in their own vocabulary. Substance in other contexts is definable (note that heretics such as Paul of Samosata got in trouble while using this same term "ousia" but not defining it according to what the Church had received; so rather than saying it is somehow not definable, it is better to say that it is itself a definition, but a definition that must be used properly, i.e., not used to separate the Persons of the Holy Trinity from one another, or to deny them their own distinct personhood within the Holy Trinity, as Sabellius did), but we know better than to try to define God in His essence when we know that this is impossible (just as it is impossible for us to do regarding regular people, I should add; that's a point I tried to make earlier, as well). Heck, a whole school of negative (apophatic) theology, of ancient provenance, defines God chiefly by what cannot be said about Him, for precisely this reason. (Though it is less common in the West than the corresponding positive, or cataphatic, theology; my own Church's tradition embraces aspects of both.)



And that is a definition of Mormonism, not of Christianity.



No, the problem really is that you're insisting on your peculiar Mormon definition of a term that your group doesn't even use (and openly rejects, according to what other Mormons have written in this thread), while seemingly pretending to ask about the Christian definition. And even when you are told that the two are like oil and water, you are continuing on in this vein as though it's proving some kind of point. It's quite tiresome and transparent.



Not at all. Christ Jesus our Lord and God had a human body which took up physical space and had mass. There, I wrote it myself. Nothing heretical about it. The fact remains that this is not what homoousios is referring to.



Hmm...for some fancy, Eastern 'mystical' words, all of Western Christianity that still remains today has had no problem accepting them, using their equivalents in their own languages, etc. It seems that you are trying to now make this conversation into something it isn't. I have no problem praying that the Persons of the Holy Trinity are consubstantial, even though that's not an 'Eastern' word. You're being really silly.

And you seem to be confusing 'ousia' with my attempt to 'explain' the Christian view of God without realizing that this term is part of the traditional Christian creed which is the explanation of what Christians believe about God, and how we understand God in our religion. So there's no getting rid of it and explaining anything, because once the Persons are not homoousios, you no longer have the One God of Christianity, but some other thing (as in Mormonism).

So your problem is not with me and the deficiencies of my explanation (though I freely grant that there are some; who can say too much about these things without falling into some kind of confusion? It is better, as St. Athanasius counseled Serapion, to believe that it is so, rather than to prod into things we can't possibly know anyway), but with the faith affirmed at Nicaea, and again at Constantinople, and again at Ephesus. And I frankly am not surprised that you have this problem, given the anti-Christ and anti-Christian theology that you have espoused in this thread. Take it up with the fathers, not with me. I think you'll find out who is preaching what if you take the time to read them, instead of reading Mormon documents. Again, you either want the Christian viewpoint or you do not.



Wrong. It was used by heretic and Orthodox alike, and its use by both predates the Council of Nicaea. It was probably first used by second century gnostics, but their use of it had no direct relation to the later Christian usage (as far as I can tell, the gnostics used it to talk about procession, rather than substance/essence). It was taken up with an exact Orthodox exposition by St. Athanasius the Apostolic and became thereafter synonymous with the definition of Nicaean Orthodoxy, since it was this wording that made it into the original Greek of the Creed (which states that Christ is ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί) over other formulas that were out there (e.g., the 'homoiousian' group and other wordings preferred by others).

You say: it is better to say that substance/oisia is itself a definition, but a definition that must be used properly, i.e., not used to separate the Persons of the Holy Trinity from one another, or to deny them their own distinct personhood within the Holy Trinity, as Sabellius did).

So we are going to say substance = substance, but we need to use this definition properly, so that we don't separate the Persons, and we don't deny them their own distinct personhood. This is the best definition of having your cake and eating it too.

If substance is like essence and essence is like divinity, I can understand. They are all divine. They all share the same divinity. The same divinity does not divide the persons and it does not deny each of them their own personhood. So we can almost come to agreement if divinity = substance = essence.

OK that is that about their internal relation. What about their external relation?

 

[Peter1000]

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are uncreated beings. Everything else is created. Therefore, we aren't the same substance as God.

It doesn't matter if it is created or uncreated. God can move created to immortal, which = uncreated. It's no big deal for God to do that.

 

[ToBeLoved]

From a Mormon POV, it is not difficult to describe the substance of Jesus, because it is contained in the bible. So let's start there. Here is what Jesus is made of. Flesh and bone and spirit. His body, with the marks still in them, was raised from the dead and with this body he ascended to his God and Father. He now sits on the right hand of God with a body of flesh and bone and spirit. Jesus's body, however, is far advanced in comparison to our mortal bodies of flesh and bone and spirit. His is a perfect, resurrected, immortal, exalted (which means a very refined flesh and bone, almost pure spirit) body that is nonetheless flesh and bone and spirit.

If it's in the Bible, then you would have scriptural support, but you do not.

 

[ToBeLoved]

It doesn't matter if it is created or uncreated. God can move created to immortal, which = uncreated. It's no big deal for God to do that.

It is a huge deal to Christians, God is not created.

And there is no uncreated where God is concerned. That is the oddest thing I have ever heard, God becomes uncreated. Nice theology there.

I think you need to start providing some kind of scriptural support because this sounds made up.