How can we both read the same exact text and come away with 2 different ideas as to what it reveals.
It is very easy: I am a Christian, and you are a Mormon.
You have only said that it confirms the coessential divinity with between the Father and the Son. But in reality this statement says absolutely nothing and to me it dodges the obvious.
It says nothing to you because you understand nothing about Christian theology, only Mormon theology. Again, I'm pretty much out of ways to explain this any further than I already have, so we're just going to have to agree to disagree, since I can't
make you understand something that your religion's theology does not allow you to understand.
An obvious revealing that you do not believe, therefore you must resort to words like "coessential" which is very difficult to explain.
That I don't believe in what, exactly? The Mormon reading of this passage? That should be obvious. Of course I don't believe in it. It's wrong and retarded. (In the medical sense, in that it reveals a mental handicap or delay that places the person suffering from it at a sub-normal level of development; in this case, it is inherited from your religion.) My religion, while it encourages us to have the faith of a child
in our innocence, encourages deep reasoning and reflection. and as such is not satisfied with surface-level readings such as that offered by JS/Mormonism in place of the traditional understanding.
Besides, the text reveals that they are 2 Persons separate and distinct
Trinitarian, Nicene Christians believe that the Persons of the Holy Trinity are distinct, so what's your point?
We believe, however, that they are "coessential" in this way: They are both made of the same substance, which means, because we know that the Son is flesh and bone and spirit, then the Father must also be flesh and bone and spirit, but obviously in a much more glorious fashion than earthly mortals.
This is not what coessential means. You don't understand the Christian use and meaning of essence/ousia/substantia.
They are also "coessential" in that They are both divine in the same way.
They are also coequal in Their power and authority and glory.
I don't know what "in the same way" means (if they were differently divine, you'd be talking about Arianism or semi-Arianism), but this is closer to the Christian understanding that they are one because of their shared divinity. It's a shame that Mormonism pairs this with the strange carnality of its theology, thereby poisoning their people's understanding.
There is nothing in the text that turns me away from this doctrine, in fact it suppports this doctrine. The whole reason for this event is to witness to the Church of Jesus Christ of the First Century that Jesus and His Father are 2 Persons and that Their oneness is the perfect unity of Their purpose. Not some homoousiou/consubstantial/coessential something.
You just sort of agreed with the traditional Christian understanding, clearly without even actually realizing it (or else you wouldn't have written the above quoted bit).
Maybe make up your mind what you actually believe if you're going to keep trying to engage me in conversation on this matter.
Stephen saw both of them and this is what the text reveals.
Yes he did, and yes it does. The question of what it means or does not mean is what we are talking about.
This is a true statement. Seeing Jesus on the right hand of God, we concur that he is divine and equal with God and the HS. But we do not concur Jesus standing on the right hand of God means They are homoousiou/constubstantial/coessential.
~ "We concur that they are homoousios, but we do not concur that they are homoousios."
Okaaaaayyy... 
We believe They are all 3 divine, all 3 are coequal, but they are still 3 separate and distinct Persons, but one in Their mission of saving men to Eternal Life. That is the only way that all the scriptures pertaining to the nature of God and Jesus and the HS can be reconciled.
No it isn't. That's the only way Mormonism can make sense of them within the framework of its own non-Christian theology. Christians, such as everyone who interacts with you here, are not so constrained by whatever JS or BY or any Mormon says or has ever said about this or anything.
I believe this statement is where our problem lies.
I believe the problem is that you listen to Mormon leaders who do not know what they are talking about, and that you are trying to use vocabulary that is traditional to Christianity, but without its traditional Christian definition. So you don't know what the words you are using actually mean. That's the problem. Sorry to be so blunt about it, but I'm tired of having the same conversation over and over with you without anything I've written helping you to understand. I'm probably not very good at explaining this stuff, but I would've hoped you would know enough by now to not contradict yourself many times in your reply regarding what Mormonism does and does not believe about the nature of God and its polytheistic trinity.
The Stephen event was a straight forward statement that he saw 2 Persons standing above him in the heavens, one standing on the right hand of the other.
Apparently, that straight-forward statement has no "theological depth".
Again, Peter, we're not arguing about what it says (I assume that we can both read), but about what it
means. It is the meaning that Mormons take from it that is very shallow.
And it does not fit with your doctrine of the nature of God and Jesus. Therefore to give it "theological depth" and have it fit with your notion of what God and Jesus are, you interject words into the text such as homoousiou and constubstantial, and coessential, that creates a facade of very difficult, controversial, debateable, esoteric "theological depth" that only a trained and seasoned philosopher can even try to explain, but will not be pressed
for clarification.
Well how many hundereds of times do I have to explain this stuff to you before it is out of my hands and up to you to use your brain and ability to Google any of the many, many sources I've given you on this topic over our many discussions on this issue? Why not take some responsibility for what you learn, at a certain point? (That we are long past by now.)
You create "theological depth" that need not be created.
I almost wish I could take credit for having 'created' this understanding, but I am not St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, St. Cyril of Alexandria, or any of the other saints who understood it this way (and who I have quoted directly on this matter) from hundreds and hundreds of years before the establishment of Mormonism.
You do that in the case of the Stephen event to cover for the fact that you do not believe the Father and the Son would appear in this fashion to men. They did, and they do.
When did I ever state that? Again, I assume we can both read and understand what the text literally says, even if we disagree about what it means.
Please don't claim I've argued something I didn't (and in this case wouldn't).
OK, I am learning your vocabulary. See if I have my terms right:
Ousia to me means "one". In that They are homoousiou, They are 3 Persons in 1 God.
Consubstantial to me means "same substance". In that They are made of the same substance. They are 3 Persons in 1 God and they are made of the same substance.
No, Peter. "ousia" means "essence". "homoousios" means "of the same essence" (i.e., coessential in their divinity).
OK, but if it is not physical, what is it? Is it a state of being, such as
They are one (oousia)?
The main distinction in traditional Christian theology is not one between physicalness and non-physicalness (this is why I'm constantly repeating in big letters that ousia doesn't have anything to do with physical anything), but between ousia and hypostasis. I'll let St. Basil of Ceasarea (d. 379) explain it, because I don't think I can do better, and this way hopefully we can avoid more false charges that I am making something up by advancing this understanding:
The distinction between ousia and hypostases is the same as that between the general and the particular; as, for instance, between the animal and the particular man. Wherefore, in the case of the Godhead, we confess one essence or substance so as not to give variant definition of existence, but we confess a particular hypostasis, in order that our conception of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit may be without confusion and clear.
In other words, the
ousia that is common to all three Persons of the Holy Trinity is the divinity, which each Person exists as their own hypostasis -- the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father, and neither are each other or the Holy Spirit, yet all three Persons/hypostases share the same ousia (the divinity). You can find the quoted text on the
Wikipedia page on Hypostasis, which might be a helpful read.
Of course they are all divine, but I'm not sure what you mean that They share the same divinity. I believe They are divine in and of Themselves. To me the words
"divine essence" is a strange concept. Divinity is not an essence of anything.
You are right that it is not an essence
of anything -- it is an essence
period.
It is a word that denotes power and authority. I believe in your effort to make Them 3 Persons in
1 God, they must need to share Their divine essence. That is not necessary to do in our concept of God and Jesus and HS.
I am aware of that. That is why Mormons are not considered to be Christians. Your theology is incorrect, from the traditional Trinitarian Christian POV.
The point of the passage is to let the Church of Jesus Christ of the First Century to know that Jesus was in fact on the right hand of God. Stephen saw both of them standing above him in the air and his dying testimony is this straight-forward event.
Does this sighting affirm Christ's coessential divinity with the Father, I am not sure, since Stephen saw 2 Persons, does that confuse the issue of coessential divinity?
No. Why would it?
