LDS verses in the Old Testament that show Jehovah (LORD) and Elohim (God) are the same God

="dzheremi, post: 71013770, member: 357536"]I have read it several times. St. Justin is a saint in my Church, and I am acquainted with his writings. It does not appear that you are understanding the background involved in St. Justin's dialogue.

Click to expand...

I read 'Trypho' around 5 years ago and it was a fascinating read. When we start talking about the OT, I have always thought that the main reason the Jews did not recognize Christ was because their scriptures were corrupted in some ways. Enough at least to confuse the doctors at the time of Christ, not to recognize him.

Justin does say that their scriptures were corrupted to some extent. The Jews did not even recogize the name of Jesus.

It seemed like in my memory that Justin did not like the Septuagint either. And when I referred to it, I just read the header for the chapters I quoted and did not again read the text. Now that you call my attention to it and I have read it again, he does recognize the Septuagint as correct and that the Jews took it and mutilated it for their purposes. So I stand corrected. Thank you.

JS, as I remember was not necessarily commanded (I will research that again though) to translate the bible. It is my recollection that it was more of a personal project. We use the JS translation sparingly, even in our Sunday school classes. I believe the Lord told JS to use the KJV, and so that is the translation of the bible we use today in the church. I would not quote from the JS translation in our discussions, unless you wanted me too. But his translation, as far as furthering our church doctirne is no different than Martin Luther's translation to further his church doctrines, or for that matter, Jerome's translation to further his church doctrines. In fact because there are hundreds of translations, I can presume that these translations were all done to further the translators idea of the right doctines, according to them. Why retranslate unless you are thinking that what you are reading is not right?

Oh, but St. Stephen did declare that he saw God there. You cannot be a Christian without declaring that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh.

Click to expand...

I do not mean to impugn your reading abilities either but it does not say that Stephen did declare that he saw God there. It says that Stephen saw Jesus, standing on the right hand of God (Acts 7:56). JS delared that he saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God. Now tell me truely, was JS blaspheming?
His experience is so similar to Stephens that it is either JS or Stephen that was blaspheming, or neither.

If JS were tied to the Sabellian heresy, he would have reported that he saw God (only), not God and Jesus standing next to each other. The 2 Persons standing next to each other eliminates Sabellianism.
In fact your thoughts that Stephen saw God (only) is more Sabellian than that Stephen saw God and Jesus standing next to each other.

It was that Stephen saw Jesus and God standing next to each other that caused the Jews to shut their ears and gnash their teeth and rush upon him and killed him. That Stephen would actually elevate Jesus to the level of God and have him standing next to God, meant there was 2 Gods, not just 1, and the Jews could not stand it. The Stephen story is a key to understanding the relationship and nature of the Godhead, and you are missing it entirely. It was the first time since Paul testified of Jesus Christ, and Stephens testimony that Jesus stood next to the Father was a testimony that lasted for over a hundred years until people like Sabellus came along and started to play with the make up of God the Father, God the Son, and God the HS. He was condemned and excommunicating for saying that God was 1 God with different modes or masks. A God the Father mode/mask, a Jesus mode/mask, and a HS mode/mask. Nicene came along 150 yars later and said that God the Father and God the Son and God the HS were 1 God, but in that 1 God there was 3 separate and distinct Persons, rather than 3 modes or masks. Many of the council bauked at this terminology as smacking of Sabellianism, but it passed and was put into church law and anyone that did not confess this was anathema. But as it turns out, this form of God is not a whole lot different that Sabellianism, as demonstrated by you today.

So don't give up on me, the history lesson you are giving is worth the discussion.

Peter1000 said:

I read 'Trypho' around 5 years ago and it was a fascinating read. When we start talking about the OT, I have always thought that the main reason the Jews did not recognize Christ was because their scriptures were corrupted in some ways. Enough at least to confuse the doctors at the time of Christ, not to recognize him.

Click to expand...

It is, in a sense, easier to see Christ in the LXX than in the more standard Hebrew OT as used by Jews (the so-called Masoretic text), but I don't know that it is therefore appropriate to say that they 'corrupted' their scriptures. They made their own canon in opposition to the Christian Church, certainly, but then they are not Christians, so that's hardly surprising. St. Justin's particular claims of having removed this or that are not a thing I would even know how to verify (since I don't know Hebrew, and it's relying on a knowledge that I do not possess of what their canon would've been in St. Justin's day, which is obviously an antecedent to how it is now).

It seemed like in my memory that Justin did not like the Septuagint either. And when I referred to it, I just read the header for the chapters I quoted and did not again read the text. Now that you call my attention to it and I have read it again, he does recognize the Septuagint as correct and that the Jews took it and mutilated it for their purposes. So I stand corrected. Thank you.

Click to expand...

Ah, I see. You're welcome.

JS, as I remember was not necessarily commanded (I will research that again though) to translate the bible. It is my recollection that it was more of a personal project. We use the JS translation sparingly, even in our Sunday school classes. I believe the Lord told JS to use the KJV, and so that is the translation of the bible we use today in the church. I would not quote from the JS translation in our discussions, unless you wanted me too. But his translation, as far as furthering our church doctirne is no different than Martin Luther's translation to further his church doctrines, or for that matter, Jerome's translation to further his church doctrines. In fact because there are hundreds of translations, I can presume that these translations were all done to further the translators idea of the right doctines, according to them. Why retranslate unless you are thinking that what you are reading is not right?

Click to expand...

In large part the earliest translations were done so that there would be scriptures that could be read in the native language of the people, rather than to support particular doctrines. St. Jerome's Vulgate, for instance, is the standard Latin-language Bible, such that if I, an Orthodox person, needed to read the Bible in Latin for some reason, that's the one I would use. It would not matter that the use of Latin in Church is primarily associated with the Roman Catholic Church, a Church to which my own is doctrinally opposed.

But modern translations like that done by JS into the same language in which standard translations already exist are much more likely to be doctrinally-led, yes. Or, to put it another way, all translations have their biases, but some are much more obvious than others. This is why my own Church, lacking as it does an English translation made by the Church itself (since we've only been present in the English-speaking world since the late 1950s/early 1960s), uses the NKJV -- it is written in relatively 'neutral' but acceptably modern and simple language (keep in mind that we are still an immigrant church with perhaps only one or two generations of people born in the USA, so we need something that will be equally useful for native English speakers in the younger generation as well as their parents who likely learned English later in life).

I do not mean to impugn your reading abilities either but it does not say that Stephen did declare that he saw God there. It says that Stephen saw Jesus, standing on the right hand of God (Acts 7:56).

Click to expand...

I am aware that it does not say that St. Stephen said that. I'm saying that that's what the verse referenced means.

JS delared that he saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God. Now tell me truely, was JS blaspheming?

Click to expand...

Yes, and I will explain why.

First and most obviously, in Joseph Smith's vision, he claimed to see the same relationship of two carnal men who were God figures he identified with the Father and the Son, standing next to each other in such an arrangement. So his understanding was carnal. The question of whether or not that matches with the report of St. Stephen is at least up to interpretation, in that Mormons read the same passage as Christians do and yet come away with some idea that their prophet Joseph Smith had a vision like that of St. Stephen, while obviously Christians do not.

What is not open to interpretation is how the early Church understood the same event as described in Acts 7. Interestingly (in context of a conversation with a Mormon, who I am going to assume believes in his church's idea of 'eternal progression'), St. Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386) in his lecture XIV describes the "right hand of the Father" in this way:

But remember also what I have often said concerning the Son's sitting at the right hand of the Father; because of the next sentence in the Creed, which says, "And ascended into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of the Father." Let us not curiously pry into what is properly meant by the throne; for it is incomprehensible: but neither let us endure those who falsely say, that it was after His Cross and Resurrection and Ascension into heaven, that the Son began to sit on the right hand of the Father. For the Son gained not His throne by advancement; but throughout His being (and His being is by an eternal generation) He also sitteth together with the Father. (emphasis added)

And over a century earlier, St. Gregory Thaumaturgus (d. 270), in his famous and truly jaw-dropping sermon on the baptism of Christ, assumes a fictionalized conversation occurring between St. John the Baptist and Jesus Christ as concerns the baptism of the latter by the former, that Christ's response to St. John would allay any fear that this situation is quite frankly backwards, as it surely must have seemed to the one who prophesied according to the scriptures that "He who comes after me is preferred before me" (John 1:15): "When thou seest me on the Father's right hand, then acknowledge me to be divine, as the equal of the Father and the Holy Spirit, on the throne, and in eternity, and in honour."

There are many such examples that can be brought forth from the early centuries of the Christian Church that show that this understanding of what it means for Christ to sit or stand at the right hand of the Father is what is normative, and hence that no one has ever understood it in such a carnal sense as JS did his own vision. This is how modern writers such as Fr. Tadros Y. Malaty of my own Church can write "The right hand does not refer to a place, but to a status" (A Patristic Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles: Part I, p. 130), secure in the knowledge that this is in fact the belief of the early Church itself, and how I can write as I did earlier that St. Stephen most definitely did see God in the passage we are discussing, because that is in fact what it means. That's what the Church has always said that it means, and the Church (and not Joseph Smith, who is outside of the Church, largely as a result of this same vision and how he chose to accept and follow it and base a new religion around it) is correct.

And of course, since the Church is correct (not based on my just saying that, but based on the consistent witness that this is what the incident we're looking at means) and Joseph Smith is not, he is introducing a blasphemous and carnal understanding that is to be rejected.

His experience is so similar to Stephens that it is either JS or Stephen that was blaspheming, or neither.

Click to expand...

It is not similar to St. Stephen's at all, so no, I do not have to declare that St. Stephen was blaspheming (God forbid!) in order to conclude that Joseph Smith was. The problem here is really not 'what does the text say' (as, again, I trust we're reading the same text, even though we're coming away from it with different interpretations), but one of Christian exegesis versus Mormon eisegesis. Christians can point back to the earliest interpreters of the faith for what we still believe today and why, whereas Mormons, by virtue of their singular understanding of the faith, the Bible, and everything else must rely on Joseph Smith as their interpreter. And unfortunately Joseph Smith's own views were not in keeping with those of the early Church, and are heretical and, yes, blasphemous.

If JS were tied to the Sabellian heresy, he would have reported that he saw God (only), not God and Jesus standing next to each other. The 2 Persons standing next to each other eliminates Sabellianism.
In fact your thoughts that Stephen saw God (only) is more Sabellian than that Stephen saw God and Jesus standing next to each other.

Click to expand...

How do you figure? I wrote that St. Stephen saw God. Your reply #17 said that only one Person is manifest at a time, which is absolutely what Sabellianism is about (that the three Persons are just 'masks' of the One God which He manifests by turn as suits the particular context).

It was that Stephen saw Jesus and God standing next to each other that caused the Jews to shut their ears and gnash their teeth and rush upon him and killed him.

Click to expand...

No it wasn't. The charges of the Jews against St. Stephen are described in Acts 6:13-14, and have nothing to do with his seeing Jesus Christ at the right hand of the Father in the next chapter: They also set up false witnesses who said, “This man does not cease to speak blasphemous words against this holy place and the law; for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs which Moses delivered to us.”

That Stephen would actually elevate Jesus to the level of God and have him standing next to God, meant there was 2 Gods, not just 1, and the Jews could not stand it.

Click to expand...

No, there are not two gods. That is not what it means. It means that they are one in essence (homoousios), equal and coessential. See the earlier patristic quotes, or the book referenced in that section of my reply.

The Stephen story is a key to understanding the relationship and nature of the Godhead, and you are missing it entirely.

Click to expand...

Your interpretation of it is no doubt essential to understanding how Mormonism sees the relationship and nature of the Godhead, but that is not an interpretation that I share, so I am going to have to disagree with your assertion that I am missing it. I see it; I just very much disagree with it. I am an Orthodox Christian, and will stick with what my fathers, the fathers of the early Church down through to today, have said concerning this matter. None of these agree with Mormonism.

But as it turns out, this form of God is not a whole lot different that Sabellianism, as demonstrated by you today.

Click to expand...

Excuse me, but this is entirely beyond the pale. Your misunderstanding of Nicaea is one thing, but to attribute to me personally the error of Sabellius based on the same misunderstanding is a bit much, to put it nicely. I do not call anything you have written Sabellian without direct reference to the words you actually used, since that gives you room to explain yourself, which you are not giving me by simply equating Nicaea with Sabellianism, and hence my support of the Nicene definition with the same. I'm not an "I'm going to tell the mods on you!" type of person, but if you are serious about wanting to have a discussion, this will not do.

As to why you are not correct concerning the faith of Nicaea, I suggest that you read St. Athanasius' De Decretis, which is his defense of the definition of the faith given at the council: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. IV

So don't give up on me, the history lesson you are giving is worth the discussion.

Click to expand...

I sure hope it will prove to be. I am very unhappy with the change in tone of the ending bit of your argument, so I am disinclined to continue it.

dzheremi says:

Do not attempt to force your own lack of understanding and resistance to the truth upon others. If you don't want to worship the Holy Trinity, the one God, that's fine (insofar as nobody can stop you from worshiping the false gods of Mormonism instead), but that doesn't make your butchering of Christian theology stand in place for actual Christian theology. This message board is not a Mormon meeting house.

Click to expand...

I didn't think I was forcing my beliefs on anyone. Do you feel dominated.
So the hundreds of translations over the years ancient and modern, are OK, accepting JS. Well that is not surprising.

I am aware that it does not say that St. Stephen said that. I'm saying that that's what the verse referenced means.

Click to expand...

OK, you are willing to accept that it does not say that, but you have to be hard-pressed to get around it. Stephen's statement is so clear and straight-forward. Let me just quote it again.
Acts 7:56
And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
I guarantee that if you were to ask a child that has not been indoctrinated, how many Persons Stephen saw, they would say 2.
I guarantee that if you were to as a child that has not been indoctrinated, to draw a picture of what Stephen saw, there would be 2 Persons standing next to each other. Would the child be blaspheming?

So you say, that is not what he said, but my interpretation of what he clearly said is the right interpretation. And to provide evidence for your correct invitation, you say, the early church believes the interpretation is the same as mine and so mine must be right. For a witness to the early church, you choose St. Cyril. Please, St Cyril was not what I would call an early church witness. He lived as you say in the 300's, more than 270 years after Jesus was resurrected. That may be the early church looking back from modern times, but for our discussion, this was certainly not the early church. By the mid 4th century he was completely immersed in the Holy Trinity concept of God, and even tries real hard to explain away the concept of "standing on the right hand of God". It is very difficult for trinitarians to get-around the concept of "Jesus standing on the right hand of God". So Cyril tries hard by saying things like, " Let us not curiously pry into what is properly meant by the throne; for it is incomprehensible".

This is always the default position, it is incomprehensible. So Cyril says because it is so incomprehensible, let us not curiously pry into what is properly meant..... If this is your leader, he didn't know and could not answer his followers accept with the default position.

You also mention St. Gregory of..... He too, is too far distant from the real early church, being aroung 270, being 240 years from Christ.

Let me give you an earlier Saint. St Justin Martyr. He was around 130-170, much closer to Stephen. His interpretation of God is found again in his Dialogue with Trypho. Which we have read a little about.
In chapter LX (3rd paragraph), LXI, and LXII, he is trying to convince Trypho that the God who spoke with Moses in the burning bush, was not the The Maker of all things. IOW they were 2 separate Individuals.

In the 3rd paragraph of LX Trypho admits that there are 2 different Lords, by Justins earlier reference to Genesis 19:24. He also continues to say that because of this scripture and other proofs that Justin tells him, he admits the God that appeared to Moses in the burning bush was not the same as the Maker of all things, which to us is God the Father.

In LXI, Justin uses an example of fire to continue to prove that the God that talked with Moses in the bush was not the same as the Maker of all things.
He says, "just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled[another], but remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled". 2 separate Individuals.

In LXII Justine continues his proof that the God that spoke to Moses from the burning bush (Jesus) was not the same as the Maker of all things, by using a scripture that is dear to me, Genesis 1:26 when he says,
"Let Us make,'--I shall quote again the words narrated by Moses himself, from which we can indisputably learn that[God] conversed with some one who was numerically distinct from Himself, and also a rational Being".
Now you say that God was simply using the 'royal we'. But your St. Justin would argue with you.

St. Justin in LX and LXI and LXII is trying to prove to Trypho that Jesus is a separate entity than the Maker of all things, with is God the Father. He is successful. So St. Justin would agree that Stephen saw 2 separate and distinct individuals, the Son of Man (Jesus) standing on the right hand of God. Just as JS would declare.

I'm going to say this again, because I think you missed it. Sabellius would be against JS too. JS declares 2 Individuals, Sabellius would declare only 1.
So who is closer to JS? Sebellius or Stephen? The scriptures clearly answer this question, it would be Stephen, who saw 2 also.

I will say this again, because I think you missed it. Sabellius would agree with you that Stephen only saw 1 God. So who is closer to Sabellius? You or JS?

whereas Mormons, by virtue of their singular understanding of the faith, the Bible, and everything else must rely on Joseph Smith as their interpreter.

Click to expand...

JS learned more in a few minutes about God and Jesus than all the doctors of religion since the early church put together, because he saw them and talked with Jesus personally. I know you don't believe that, but if it were true would you not say the same thing. Having a discussion with God and Jesus would be much better than writing a book about a Being that you have never seen or heard from. All you are writing is what you think is right, not what is necessarily right. Having a discussion with God and Jesus makes all the difference. It is right. I will believe that man before I would believe all the scholars since the beginning.

No, there are not two gods. That is not what it means. It means that they are one in essence (homoousios), equal and coessential. See the earlier patristic quotes, or the book referenced in that section of my reply.

Click to expand...

You can homoousios and coessential all you want, but the text clearly says that Stephen saw Jesus standing next to God. How can you be standing next to someone and be homoousios? You can be of the same substance, and still be separate and distinct. Homoousios is a strange doctrine to me.
You have to wrestle with the text to make Homoousios work. I don't think wrestling with the text is necessary. St. Justin says the following:
"just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled[another], but remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled." So St. Justin does not believe they are homoousios, according to his fire example. And he is a lot closer to the early church than St Cyril, and St. Gregory. 50 years after St. Justin, things really started moving toward homoousios. Sebellius (215 ad) was the one that really got the 1 God theory going, and you know where that took everyone.

I am an Orthodox Christian, and will stick with what my fathers, the fathers of the early Church down through to today, have said concerning this matter. None of these agree with Mormonism.

Click to expand...

Your fathers, from your example started around 270-386ad. Long after the early church. My example is around 150ad, and this St. Justin was much closer to JS than to St. Cyril.

Excuse me, but this is entirely beyond the pale. Your misunderstanding of Nicaea is one thing, but to attribute to me personally the error of Sabellius based on the same misunderstanding is a bit much, to put it nicely. I do not call anything you have written Sabellian without direct reference to the words you actually used, since that gives you room to explain yourself, which you are not giving me by simply equating Nicaea with Sabellianism, and hence my support of the Nicene definition with the same. I'm not an "I'm going to tell the mods on you!" type of person, but if you are serious about wanting to have a discussion, this will not do.

Click to expand...

You have accused me of Sabellianism, which by definition requires the belief in 1 God. Since we believe in 2 Gods, per the scriptures and early church saints, it eliminates us from being Sabellian. Any belief system that believes in 1 God is closer to Sabellianism to we are. You, therefore are closer simply because you too believe in 1 God. They believed in 1 God with 3 modes or masks. You believe in 1 God with 3 distinct Persons. We believe in 2 separate distinct Individuals. You are closer, get used to it. I am not trying to hurt your feelings, this is not my intent at all, but by definition your belief is closer to Sabellianims. It is not Sabellianism, but it is closer than the Mormon belief.

dzheremi said:

There are many such examples that can be brought forth from the early centuries of the Christian Church that show that this understanding of what it means for Christ to sit or stand at the right hand of the Father is what is normative, and hence that no one has ever understood it in such a carnal sense as JS did his own vision. This is how modern writers such as Fr. Tadros Y. Malaty of my own Church can write "The right hand does not refer to a place, but to a status" (A Patristic Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles: Part I, p. 130), secure in the knowledge that this is in fact the belief of the early Church itself, and how I can write as I did earlier that St. Stephen most definitely did see God in the passage we are discussing, because that is in fact what it means. That's what the Church has always said that it means, and the Church (and not Joseph Smith, who is outside of the Church, largely as a result of this same vision and how he chose to accept and follow it and base a new religion around it) is correct.

And of course, since the Church is correct (not based on my just saying that, but based on the consistent witness that this is what the incident we're looking at means) and Joseph Smith is not, he is introducing a blasphemous and carnal understanding that is to be rejected.

Click to expand...

Another great explanation, dzheremi - I also learn a lot from reading your stuff and I appreciate it!

I love the way Fr. Malaty summed it up - very succinct and to the point. At the risk of over-simplifying, I'll add my view about "right hand" - the key, as Fr. Malaty pointed out, is that it's a status, not physical location. In modern English we often use the term "right-hand man" - it is another way of saying a person is essentially your partner, the person's status is such that you need and rely on him for your own personal successes. It does NOT mean that the person is literally, physically on the right side of your body. Your "right-hand man" might never once be physically at your right side but the point is that he is your needed partner in your (business, personal, etc.) endeavors.

That's not exactly the same as the relationship between The Son and The Father but the point is that it is a status and not a literal, physical relationship of physical positioning.

That's an excellent analogy, John. It's not about their physical positioning at all. This is why we cannot compare the alleged vision of Joseph Smith to those of the saints such as St. Stephen the protomartyr or others: Joseph Smith's vision apparently was about physical positioning, according to Peter's explanation. So they're really not the same at all. (And it makes JS' vision seem a little...I don't know the right way to put it...shallow? Like what is it supposed to say about God? Mormonism has two god figures that it says are the Father and the Son and they're standing next to each other...okay...so what? There's no theological depth or meaning to that at all, if the point is their literal physical positioning in relation to one another. JS might as well have said that he saw them having lunch together, or reading the newspaper, or whatever, just as two men might do.)

ArmenianJohn said:

Another great explanation, dzheremi - I also learn a lot from reading your stuff and I appreciate it!

I love the way Fr. Malaty summed it up - very succinct and to the point. At the risk of over-simplifying, I'll add my view about "right hand" - the key, as Fr. Malaty pointed out, is that it's a status, not physical location. In modern English we often use the term "right-hand man" - it is another way of saying a person is essentially your partner, the person's status is such that you need and rely on him for your own personal successes. It does NOT mean that the person is literally, physically on the right side of your body. Your "right-hand man" might never once be physically at your right side but the point is that he is your needed partner in your (business, personal, etc.) endeavors.

That's not exactly the same as the relationship between The Son and The Father but the point is that it is a status and not a literal, physical relationship of physical positioning.

Click to expand...

So standing on the right hand of God is a 'status' rather than a physical location? Wow, what twisting nuances do we produce to get around the text. Stephen's words make it certain it was a 'location', and nothing to do with 'status'. So Stephen could have said, "I saw Jesus, the right hand man of God, and you think that would have been better than the text of Acts 7:56? Well now think about that for a minute and then read the text again. From the text, Stephen clearly saw 2 Persons standing next to each other. But because of your trinitarian theology which demands that Stephen only saw 1 Person there, you have to go through a rhetorical gyration to overcome the text that is somewhat exhausting. Just rely on the text. It is straight forward and no interpretations are necessary, unless your theology doesn't match up with the text.

A better analogy would be for someone to tell say, I saw our friend Bobby the other day, standing on the right hand side of his father Don. You would immediately see that in your mind. You would also know that there were 2 people in your minds eye. No problem with this description. The text and your minds eye would reconcile.

But in this case, the 'right hand man' approach is unbiblical in comparison with the real text. Yes Jesus is God the Fathers right hand man in a way, but if you saw God the Father and Jesus standing next to each other you would never confuse the issue by saying, I saw the right hand man of God and leaving it at that. You would at least say, I saw the right hand man of God standing at the right hand of God. Then the only remark would be, why did you use 'the right hand man' instead of just saying 'Jesus'.

Peter1000 said:

So standing on the right hand of God is a 'status' rather than a physical location? Wow, what twisting nuances do we produce to get around the text.

Click to expand...

Nobody is 'going around' anything, though. Everyone recognizes how the text literally reads. The issue is that the Mormon understanding of what it means is completely out of step with the exegesis of the Christian Church, both ancient and modern.

So Stephen could have said, "I saw Jesus, the right hand man of God, and you think that would have been better than the text of Acts 7:56?

Click to expand...

Do you not understand what an analogy is? There's no need to do anything to the text as it is now.

Well now think about that for a minute and then read the text again. From the text, Stephen clearly saw 2 Persons standing next to each other. But because of your trinitarian theology which demands that Stephen only saw 1 Person there, you have to go through a rhetorical gyration to overcome the text that is somewhat exhausting.

Click to expand...

The text is not about the number of persons St. Stephen saw in the first place. It is you who is desperate to make it about that in order to supposedly give credence to your own religion's polytheism, but the Holy Bible does not support that, in that verse or anywhere else.

Just rely on the text.

Click to expand...

Just rely on the early Christian Church. It wrote and canonized the text. (See how convincing this kind of non-argument is, even when it is 100% right?)

It is straight forward and no interpretations are necessary, unless your theology doesn't match up with the text.

Click to expand...

You've never written truer words than these, Peter...

A better analogy would be for someone to tell say, I saw our friend Bobby the other day, standing on the right hand side of his father Don. You would immediately see that in your mind. You would also know that there were 2 people in your minds eye. No problem with this description. The text and your minds eye would reconcile.

Click to expand...

That's a better analogy for the polytheistic Mormon reading of the text that you are advocating, but it does not work for the Christian understanding.

But in this case, the 'right hand man' approach is unbiblical in comparison with the real text. Yes Jesus is God the Fathers right hand man in a way, but if you saw God the Father and Jesus standing next to each other you would never confuse the issue by saying, I saw the right hand man of God and leaving it at that.

Click to expand...

What is this in response to? There's nothing in what John has written that confuses the Father and the Son.

You would at least say, I saw the right hand man of God standing at the right hand of God. Then the only remark would be, why did you use 'the right hand man' instead of just saying 'Jesus'.

Click to expand...

...because that's how the analogy works? It's not meant to give Jesus some kind of weird nickname. It is meant to explain how the 'right hand of God' is not a matter of literal physical positioning, but of status. Again, seeing Jesus at the right hand of the Father is a confirmation of His coeternal and coequal divinity with the Father, not some kind of Biblical affirmation of polytheism. The Bible does not support that but by Mormonism's abuse of it.

dzheremi said:

That's an excellent analogy, John. It's not about their physical positioning at all. This is why we cannot compare the alleged vision of Joseph Smith to those of the saints such as St. Stephen the protomartyr or others: Joseph Smith's vision apparently was about physical positioning, according to Peter's explanation. So they're really not the same at all. (And it makes JS' vision seem a little...I don't know the right way to put it...shallow? Like what is it supposed to say about God? Mormonism has two god figures that it says are the Father and the Son and they're standing next to each other...okay...so what? There's no theological depth or meaning to that at all, if the point is their literal physical positioning in relation to one another. JS might as well have said that he saw them having lunch together, or reading the newspaper, or whatever, just as two men might do.)

Click to expand...

Stephen says he saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and you argue that this is not saying anything about his physical position to God. Then you go on and say that because JS said the same thing, his experience is not comparable and is shallow. Just who are you trying to kid. Seriously, are we looking at the same Acts 7:56?

Of course, according to me, the JS experience was about positioning. Why would he say he saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God the Father, if he didn't really mean Jesus was standing on the right hand of the Father. What do you think 'standing on the right hand of the God' means.

The real problem that you have with these 2 texts from Stephen and JS, (that say the same thing), is that they do not allow for the trinitarian theological basis for God and Jesus. If Stephen would have said he looked into the heavens and saw God (which you tried on me earlier), then your homoousian theology would work and then you could gleefully attack JS, who said he saw both Jesus and God. Unfortunately for you, Stephen also said he saw both Jesus and God. So what that means is whatever you say about JS you have to say about Stephen, simply because they saw the same things and said the same things about Jesus and God. They both said that Jesus was 'positioned' on the right hand of God. So your 'right hand man theology' falls woefully short of the text and reality. Read the text again and then read JS and you will come to the same conlusion and the truth about Jesus and God will be all of a sudden transparent. No default to incomprehensible either.

dzheremi said:

Nobody is 'going around' anything, though. Everyone recognizes how the text literally reads. The issue is that the Mormon understanding of what it means is completely out of step with the exegesis of the Christian Church, both ancient and modern.

Click to expand...

The Mormon concept of God and Jesus and the Hs conforms far more closely with the NT and what was being taught around 150 and through St. Justin Martyr. We learn from this Saint that the early church still believed that Jesus and God were 2 separate and distinct Beings. By 180-210 Sabellius and others start meddling with that relationship because the Christians were coming under fire for being polytheists from the Jews and the pagans. So Sabellius came up with an ingenius way to fix that. He proposed that there was truly 1 God, but that God had 3 different modes/masks. A God the father mode/mask, a Jesus mode/mask, and a HS mode/mask. How they operated under this mode/mask configuration is still unkown, but it did get the ball rolling towards the Christians having 1 God.

For the next 100 years or so, the debate raged, Sabellius was excommunicated and his theory was exposed as heretical. But interestingly, his 1 God theory took hold and the doctors of religion started to configure God and Jesus as 1 God, not 2, which for some reason, and all of a sudden was considered polytheism, and heretical.

The answer to this perplexing configuration was that through the unexplainable and incomprehensible doctrine of 'homoousia', God and Jesus and the HS were 1 God, but they were 1 God, with 3 distinct Persons within that 1 God. (Note the similarity to 1 God with 3 'modes/masks'). Somehow this was considered orthodox, even though it was eerily reminiscent to Sabellianism. In fact Sebellius used the word 'homoousia' in his heresy.

So it looks like the only thing that changed from Sabellias's formula and the Nicene Formula was the mode/mask designation was changed to Persons. No wonder it took hundreds of years to convince the people of the church that this was the true Christian God.

JS was right on, and the church is bringing the world back to the true Godhead. You are so 'homooused', you cannot even read a simple text about Stephen seeing Jesus 'positioned' next to God, and believe it. To you they are 1, to Stephen they were 2, and that is his testimony and you cannot see it. You say the number was not the focus of this testimony, but I disagree, I think it was the centerpiece of his testimony. There have only been a few times in the history of the world that God the Father has come to earth and been seen with His Son Jesus Christ, and this is one of those historic times. It was recorded in the scriptures to prove for generations that God the Father and Jesus Christ were in reality 2 separate and distinct Beings (one standing next to the Other). Unless you are thouroghly 'homoousiated', you cannot read that text in any other way. It says what it means, and it means what it says.

The text is not about the number of persons St. Stephen saw in the first place. It is you who is desperate to make it about that in order to supposedly give credence to your own religion's polytheism, but the Holy Bible does not support that, in that verse or anywhere else.

Click to expand...

The Holy Bible does not support 1 God, 3 Persons. The words 'Holy Trinity' are not found in the bible. The word 'Persons' is not found in the bible. The word 'homoousia' is not found in the bible. There is no chapter in the Holy Bible that takes you by the hand and shows you how God and Jesus are 1, let alone all the ramifications of that doctrine. All you can count on are a few sparsely separated scriptures that added together can give a slight notion that God and Jesus are 1 God and 3 distinct Persons.

On the other hand, I can give you several stories in the bible that are designed especially to illistrate the reality of who God and Jesus are. The bible clearly demonstrates that they are 2 separate and distinct Beings. It is hard to miss unless you are burdened with centuries of the philosphy of 'homoousia'.

Just rely on the early Christian Church. It wrote and canonized the text. (See how convincing this kind of non-argument is, even when it is 100% right?)

Click to expand...

Your 270ad and 386ad early church fathers was not impressive. I gave you 150ad with textual evidence that I was right.

That's a better analogy for the polytheistic Mormon reading of the text that you are advocating, but it does not work for the Christian understanding.

Click to expand...

The early church, per St. Justin (150ad) believed that the Godhead was made up of 3 separate and distinct Beings. Separate as 2 fires are separate, but made of exactly the same substance. Their oneness comes in the fact that they are so unified, and so perfect in Their salvation path, etc. They are so one in Their purpose that it is as if They are One God. If you want to call this polytheism, go ahead, that is exactly what the Jews and the pagans did to the Christians around 170-200ad, but that does not take away the fact that there are still 3 separate and distinct Beings in the Godhead (and the word 'Godhead' is in the bible).

Like I have always said, the few minutes that JS and Stephen spent seeing God and Jesus gave us more perfect information about them than all the doctors and scholars of phylosophy and religion have given us throughout the centuries. I call on Stephen and JS, eye witnesses of God and Jesus for my knowledge and you call on the doctors and scholars of phylosophy and religion for your knowledge.

The knowledge is different. Eye witness is better than scholarship every day.

Peter, I am loathe to participate in your alternate history re-imaginings of what St. Justin taught, what Sabellius was doing and why, etc., so this is probably going to be my last participation in this conversation. You've demonstrated already earlier in the thread that you do not actually read the things that you are referencing, and your puddle-shallow descriptions of Christian history are quite frankly an insult to the individuals involved. Of course you are going to think that St. Stephen the Protomartyr, or St. Justin Martyr, or anyone else you can find is "saying the same thing" as Joseph Smith, because you desperately want to find some kind of confirmation of your polytheism in the early Church, since that makes you/the LDS 'right' and traditional Trinitarian Christians 'wrong'. If that's what helps you sleep at night, fine, continue thinking that, but those of us who know the history from having learned it from inside the Church itself know better than to fall for your blatant distortions and misrepresentations of it. Case in point, while you claim the controversy surrounding Sabellius' heresy "raged" for 100 years after 210 AD, anyone who actually knows Christian history for its own sake and not for how their religion can mangle it for their own ends knows that Sabellius was excommunicated by Pope Callixtus of Rome in 220 AD -- pretty well short of the century you claim. (And so it was not "all the sudden" considered heretical, as you claim; it was always considered heretical, and was dealt with accordingly.)

As to why Sabellius did what he did, I don't know where you're getting all that from, since what is reconstructable about his theology comes from his opponents, none of whom mention that he had concocted this idea in order to aid Christians in defending themselves from the claims Jews and the pagans (why would pagans, who were polytheists, care if Christians were polytheists? How is this a charge against Christians, in that context?). That's something that you've come up with out of nowhere to serve your own Mormonism-promoting ideas, , just like your reading of Acts 7, of St. Justin, and basically everything else.

I'm not buying it, and I don't imagine anyone who knows even one iota of Christian theology or history would either.

Peter1000 said:

Of course, according to me, the JS experience was about positioning. Why would he say he saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God the Father, if he didn't really mean Jesus was standing on the right hand of the Father. What do you think 'standing on the right hand of the God' means.

Click to expand...

If you are going to take that passage literally, why is God's right hand under the foot of Jesus? That's weird for someone to be standing on someone else's hand, isn't it?

BigDaddy4 said:

If you are going to take that passage literally, why is God's right hand under the foot of Jesus? That's weird for someone to be standing on someone else's hand, isn't it?

Click to expand...

One thing I've wondered for a long time is, how does somebody tell when to take a Bible passage literally, and when to take it metaphorically? The Bible doesn't appear to have a How To Read This Book section. We're left to really wonder what the different verses mean.

ArmenianJohn said:

Again, you're having a hard time understanding because you're presuming there to be a "beginning" where "that essence" existed and then later "sprouted three persons". The Christian view is that God has always been God, God has always been The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit and that there is no "beginning" and no end - He, the Triune God, is eternal with no beginning and no end, and He has not and will not change. A tomato plant has a beginning and an end - God does not. The fact that you compare God to a tomato plant just proves again that mormons believe their god to be finite and limited. In Christianity, God is infinite and unlimited - He is omnipotent and all-powerful.

Click to expand...

I'm still having a hard time understanding what it means to talk about one being that consists of three persons. Is the Christian position that the tomato plant has always been in existence, and that it has always had three tomatoes on it? Once again, I'm not trying to mock; I'm just struggling to understand.

KevinSim said:

One thing I've wondered for a long time is, how does somebody tell when to take a Bible passage literally, and when to take it metaphorically? The Bible doesn't appear to have a How To Read This Book section. We're left to really wonder what the different verses mean.

Click to expand...

So you feel free to interpret things how you want to and take "right hand" literally?

KevinSim said:

I'm still having a hard time understanding what it means to talk about one being that consists of three persons. Is the Christian position that the tomato plant has always been in existence, and that it has always had three tomatoes on it? Once again, I'm not trying to mock; I'm just struggling to understand.

Click to expand...

John 3:12 "I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?"

Kevin, I would recommend that you read what the fathers wrote on this subject. Here is one such resource I have posted before in conversation with your fellow Mormons, the letter of HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic to Serapion on the Holy Trinity: St. Mary's Coptic Orthodox Church

It is full of Biblical illustrations of how we can properly conceive of the Holy Trinity, according to what the apostles themselves have left us.

BigDaddy4 said:

So you feel free to interpret things how you want to and take "right hand" literally?

Click to expand...

Not really. I was genuinely confused by the whole Biblical interpretation issue. I don't know how to determine which things to take literally and which not.

That has led me to the idea that what the Holy Spirit says to us while we're reading the scriptures is vital to us understanding what God's message really is. But to be perfectly honest I don't recall the Holy Spirit leading me one way or the other when I've read the stuff about the mentioned "right hand." I think I've never asked God if He meant me to take that particular passage literally or metaphorically.

BigDaddy4 said:

John 3:12 "I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?"

Click to expand...

Is an accurate description of the Trinity, including an explanation of the differences between a being and a person, an earthly thing or a heavenly thing? If it's a heavenly thing, then what are the earthly things I need to understand before I can understand the Trinity?

But I guess the real important question is, BigDaddy4, do you understand the Trinity any better than I do? Or are you also stuck at the present, trying to understand earthly things too?

dzheremi said:

Kevin, I would recommend that you read what the fathers wrote on this subject. Here is one such resource I have posted before in conversation with your fellow Mormons, the letter of HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic to Serapion on the Holy Trinity: St. Mary's Coptic Orthodox Church

It is full of Biblical illustrations of how we can properly conceive of the Holy Trinity, according to what the apostles themselves have left us.

Click to expand...

Read it. Now, I could have missed something (that's totally possible), but I didn't see a thing that Athanasius said that went against what the LDS Church teaches about the Godhead. Did you?

BigDaddy4 said:

If you are going to take that passage literally, why is God's right hand under the foot of Jesus? That's weird for someone to be standing on someone else's hand, isn't it?

Click to expand...

You know very well what it means when the scriptures says, 'standing on the right hand of God'. You know it does not mean that Jesus's foot is on God's right hand. You know that it is talking about the position that Jesus is as to the Father. His position is on the same side of God as God's right hand is. Now you can see in your minds eye the position of Christ as he is standing next to God. Still 2 Persons separate and distinct. You cannot get past it. The text is too clear and straight forward.