Christianity vs Mormonism : Bible, BOM & Nature of God

Grace_Alone4gives · Apr 13, 2003

Then let me begin now.

Throughout scripture, God is said to be a Father. Jesus taught his disciples to pray, Our Father in heaven (Matt. 6:9). God is not only our heavenly Father (Matt. 6:32), but the Father of our spirits (Hebrews 12:9). As God, he is the object of worship. Jesus told the woman of Samaria, Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshippers the Father seeks (John 4:23). He is also called God and Father (2 Cor. 1:3). Paul proclaimed that there is but one God, the Father (1 Cor. 8:6). Theres more, of course, but for the moment, I think this is enough to suffice the case for the Fathers deity.

Now is the case for the deity of Christ. Jesus took the glory of God. Isaiah wrote, I am the Lord [Yahweh], that is my name; I will not give to another, or my praise to idols (42:8) and, This is what the Lord [Yahweh] says I am the first, and I am the last; apart from me there is no God (44:6). Likewise, Jesus prayed, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began (John 17:5). But Yahweh had said he would not give his glory to another.

While the Old Testament forbids giving worship to anyone other than God (Exodus 20:1-4; Deut. 5:6-9), Jesus accepted worship (Matt. 14:33; 28:17) without a single word of rebuke. Jesus claimed equality with God when he claimed to be the judge of all (Matt. 25:31-46; John 5:27-30), but Joel quotes Yahweh as saying, for there I will sit to judge all the nations on every side (Joel 3:12). Jesus claimed the power to raise and judge the dead, a power which only God possesses (John 5:21, 29). But the Old Testament clearly taught that only God was the giver of life (Deut. 32:39; 1 Sam. 2:6) and the one to raise the dead (Ps. 2:7). Not only this, but Jesus said he would raise himself from the dead (John 2:19-22) while Paul writes in Romans 10:9 that God raised him from the dead. Either Jesus=God, or thats a gapping contradiction. Theres more to this, of course, but I think thats enough to suffice for now.

If youve come this far, and agree with the what Ive presented for the deity of the Father and the deity of Christ, then youve overcome the greatest hurdle in believing the Trinity, since you now believe in a plurality of persons in the Godhead, and have come to acknowledge that the Father=God, Jesus=God, and God=1. You now have your lovely math equation of 2=1 (Ive discussed the logic of this earlier in this reply now it is time to focus strictly on what scripture actually teaches). Lets continue with the final third of this presentation: The Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is called God (Acts 5:3-4). He possesses the attributes of deity, such as omnipresence (cf. Ps. 139:7-12) and omniscience (1 Cor. 2:10, 11). He is associated with God the Father in creation (Gen. 1:2). He is involved with the other members of the Godhead in the work of redemption (John 3:5-6; Romans 8:9-17; Titus 3:5-7). He is associated with other members of the Trinity under the name (singular) of God (Matt. 28:18-20). Finally, the Holy Spirit appears, along with the Father and Son, in New Testament benedictions (for example, 2 Cor. 13:14).

That the three members of the Trinity are distinct persons is clear in that each is mentioned in distinction from the others. The Son prayed to the Father (cf. John 17). The Father spoke from heaven about the Son at his baptism (Matt. 3:15-17). Indeed, the Holy Spirit was present at the same time, revealing that they coexist. Further, the fact that they have separate titles (Father, Son, and Spirit) indicate they are not one person. Also, each member of the Trinity has special functions that help us to identify them. For example, the Father planned salvation (John 3:16; Eph. 1:4); the Son accomplished it on the cross (John 17:4; 19:30; Heb. 1:1-2) and at the resurrection (Rom. 4:25; 1 Cor. 15:1-6), and the Holy Spirit applies it to the lives of the believers (John 3:5; Eph. 4:30; Titus 3:5-7). The Son submits to the Father (1 Cor. 11:3; 15:28) and the Holy Spirit glorifies the Son (John 16:14).

Well, I think thats just about it for now. Time to write about other things

Wow - praise God Jedi! You have a gift. You articulate perfectly. Blessings to you.

I will add to your comments tomorrow. GBU

Victoria

straightforward · Apr 13, 2003

Yesterday at 10:36 PM jodrey said this in Post #114
You're thinking of this far too simplistically. The learned Jews who refused Jesus back then were skeptics, and they certainly would have exploited any logic hole they could find. To say "three are one" is acceptable, but to say "three is one" (implied by the concept of the Trinity) is even gramatically wrong. You should examine the ensuing discussions because it's nowhere near as simple as you say it is.

And, being 'simplistic' in stating what the Jewish people believe about God and the Holy Spirit and then being 'simplistic' with Jesus and God being One; I do not understand why you would be caught up by something as simple as the difference of 'is' and 'are'. God 'is' and the three 'persons' (for lack of a better earthly word) 'are' God. What exactly IS your problem with this grammar?

That's quite a different concept. You are a daughter to your mother, a wife to your husband, and a mother to your child(ren). If we were talking Trinity then you'd have to be a daughter to yourself, a wife to yourself, and a mother to yourself. This gets even more complex, but I'll leave it alone for now.

Click to expand...

And God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit....but they are all together God. You must admit we are trying to explain something heavenly in human terms...of course all our attempts will fall apart. But, I do not think that in itself (that being our ignorance of a way to describe it in earthly terms) is any excuse for trying to make it more human so we can explain it in a human way...which is what I think the mormon faith is founded on.

What is God? The word comes from two different Hebrew roots, one which is even plural in usage! Both have a varying set of possible definitions. There is nothing explicit in the New Testament wich states that the Father and Son are One God. The only indications that the Father and Son one are found in the NT, and not one of those passages says that they are one God. So no, there is no biblical evidence of this.

Click to expand...

And...

Okay. What about them?

Click to expand...

I think these two tie in. Do you know what types and shadows are? Besides that...we have many descriptions of God in the O.T. which are groups of three and directly corrolate to the three persons in the Trinity.

But how, according to logic, can it be right? This was the subject I was discussing there; the illogic of the Trinity.

Click to expand...

But how, according to logic, could God say that there is only ONE God and He was it and we were to have no other gods before Him...if there are really three gods in the 'Godhead', as mormons believe, and there are a bunch of other 'gods' all over the place. This would not be logical...would it?

The references are generally that the Father and Son are One, but that is not an explicit teaching of the Trinity.

Click to expand...

As I wrote before...there WAS no question that God and the Holy Spirit were one...I did not think you needed reference to that so I went on to give biblical references to the Father and Son being one. (I will find more if you would like...just say the word.) Along with the quotes that referenced the Spirit of God being in us, the Holy Spirit being in us, and the Spirit of Jesus being in us...I have yet to see your explaination of that! Do you have an explaination? Mine is that they are all three the same Spirit. Thus they are all One. I do not believe we are running around with many Spirits in us..do you? If so...what spirit/spirits do you have?

I have two Biblical evidences, really: the first is the lack of any explicit teaching of the Trinity found in the Bible, which is a much stronger proof than it at first seems. My second is mainly the Trilliony, as written about again in my last post.

Click to expand...

As I have said, and will say as many times as need be, what scripture do you have saying there was not a Trinity? Is this the only thing you have? I think the numerous references that we have shown you makes it clear if you are willing to look.

straightforward · Apr 13, 2003

Today at 12:01 AM jodrey said this in Post #117

Wait! I found where it talks about the Trinity in the Bible!
Matthew 16: 13-17

13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Logos, existing in the Father as his rationality and then, by an act of his will, being generated, in consideration of the various functions by which God is related to his creation, but only on the fact that scripture speaks of a Father, and a Son, and a Holy Spirit, each member of the Trinity being coequal with every other member, and each acting inseparably with and interpenetrating every other member, with only an economic subordination within God, but causing no division which would make the substance no longer simple.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, What?

hehe! Would that be the J.S. translation?

straightforward · Apr 13, 2003

Yesterday at 10:05 PM jodrey said this in Post #113
In the Garden of Gethsemane Jesus offered a prayer, and in this prayer He explained how He and His Father are One. This should really be the defining passage to answer the question at hand. Jesus says, in John 17: 20-23, "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me." Here we learn two very important points: (1) We may be one with Christ in the same way that He is one with the Father, so that we may all be one; (2) We are not yet one with Him. If we read this in the Trinitarian literal sense, we will become part of God, or in other words, we will become God. We are not part of God yet (or not everyone is, but may become so), so the concept that our spirits are God is incorrect. Either we would lose our identity entirely and become dissolved into God, or the Trinity would then become a Trilliony. Indeed, I am certain that at least some have already become one in Christ, and there would then be more than three persons in the Trinity as explained by Jedi by now. Since we are to be one in Christ in the same way that He is one with His Father, if you disagree that we will either become absorbed into Him or become a Trilliony, then it is obvious that Christ is not the same being with the Father. Clearly, this Oneness is purely symbolic. According to the LDS Church, the three are individuals that are one in unity of purpose and power; therefore it can even be said that they are One God; but they are also Gods individually, each divine. There is nothing in the Bible to uproot this idea, and as shown, this great passage has proven the point.

 

Wasnt this more about the unity of believers. This having to do with love, a unity of obedience to God and His Word, and a united commitment to His will. Believers belong to the ONE body of Christ (1Cor.12:13) and that spiritual unity is to be shown in the way we live. Christ wants for His church is the same kind of unity He has with the Father, just as You are in Me and I am in You (compare John 10:38, 17:11,23).

The Bible Knowledge Commentary I have says it best: The Father did His works through the Son and the Son always did what pleased the Father (5:30, 8:29). This spiritual unity is to be patterned in the church. Without union with Jesus and the Father (they also may be one in Us), Christians can do nothing (15:5). The goal of their lives is to do the Fathers will. The disciples union with Jesus as His body will result in people in the world believing in the Father that You have sent Me."

The Holy Spirit in us knits us together and to God. It also testifies to the world the message of the Father. Looking at these verses this way your theory falls apart. Jesus is still saying that He and the Father are Onethat is not deniedbut you must also look at the context of what He is sayingHe is talking about God being glorified throughout the world for what He has done and who He is and this being shown in the disciples who would then spread the word to all of us and thus we would spread the word to everyone we can. We could not do this without the Holy Spirit being in us.

As for Jesus and the Father being one:

John 1:1; In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. (notice it does not say the word was A god) John 1:14 clarifies that the word was Jesus: And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth

I do not see why this in itself does not answer in full that Jesus is God.

jodrey · Apr 13, 2003

Thank you for addressing the Trilliony, straightforward, but I'm afraid you've side-stepped some of the main points I was making.

Wasnt this more about the unity of believers. This having to do with love, a unity of obedience to God and His Word, and a united commitment to His will. Believers belong to the ONE body of Christ (1Cor.12:13) and that spiritual unity is to be shown in the way we live. Christ wants for His church is the same kind of unity He has with the Father, just as You are in Me and I am in You (compare John 10:38, 17:11,23).

The Bible Knowledge Commentary I have says it best: The Father did His works through the Son and the Son always did what pleased the Father (5:30, 8:29). This spiritual unity is to be patterned in the church. Without union with Jesus and the Father (they also may be one in Us), Christians can do nothing (15:5). The goal of their lives is to do the Fathers will. The disciples union with Jesus as His body will result in people in the world believing in the Father that You have sent Me."

The Holy Spirit in us knits us together and to God. It also testifies to the world the message of the Father. Looking at these verses this way your theory falls apart. Jesus is still saying that He and the Father are Onethat is not deniedbut you must also look at the context of what He is sayingHe is talking about God being glorified throughout the world for what He has done and who He is and this being shown in the disciples who would then spread the word to all of us and thus we would spread the word to everyone we can. We could not do this without the Holy Spirit being in us.

The context may or may not be important in this sense; it's more likely not. Jesus said, That we may be one in Him as He is one in the Father. This is quite clear and I don't see how context affects the meaning.

As for Jesus and the Father being one:

John 1:1; In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. (notice it does not say the word was A god) John 1:14 clarifies that the word was Jesus: And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth

I do not see why this in itself does not answer in full that Jesus is God.

This is a better argument. I need to state two things about this, though. As has been said, Mormons believe that the three are each Gods. There is more than one way to see this scripture. First of all, a note on translation:

There are no indefinite articles in ancient Greek. It's a choice of the translator to omit or include them. The scripture could have also been translated: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was a God." It comes down to a matter of interpretation here rather than translation. If you already believe in the Trinity then of course you'd omit the article a, but this does not necessarily mean that you must. With this correction, if indeed it is correct, there would be found no fault in the Mormon doctrine of Trinity in comparison to this verse.

There is another possibility, and that is in relation to the possible plurality of the word "God" in that context (even though it is singular). God here could actually mean the Godhead -- in that symbollic sense, the three are one God in purpose, will, power, and glory. In order for this to be explicit, "God" would actually have to read "the Father," and that is not how it was written. "God" is abstract, dynamic, and can generally have many meanings. While often used to refer to the Father (this is the most frequent usage), or the Son, or the Holy Ghost, or all three, it can also refer to idols, false gods, lords, or anything else of great power and authority.

It's my opinion that the second option is most probable, as refering to the Godhead as God happens frequently when conveying the unity of it. There may be other explanations as well, but these are two I know of.

jodrey · Apr 13, 2003

hehe! Would that be the J.S. translation?

Errm... Perhaps you didn't get it...

Jedi · Apr 13, 2003

There are no indefinite articles in ancient Greek. It's a choice of the translator to omit or include them. The scripture could have also been translated: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was a God."

Oh, this again. I really think that once again, this is nothing more than splitting hairs and does not change a thing. Is Jesus a false God or a true God? Scripture emphasises time and time again that there is no God but Yahweh. To say that Jesus is being spoken of as some sort of metaphorical "god," I think that's a clearly dishonest reading of the text, since the deity of Christ is avidly supported elsewhere.

In order for this to be explicit, "God" would actually have to read "the Father," and that is not how it was written.

The term translated as "God" here is the same, exact term used to describe who sent John the Baptist into the world (John 1:6), and is the same term used to describe the "Father" in 1 Corinthians 1:3. There's no reason to understand it any different. If scripture says "God did this," it's not saying "a false God" did this, or "one of the many lesser gods did this," but rather "the God did this." Unless the context notes otherwise, this is a general rule we must stick to.

jodrey · Apr 13, 2003

And, being 'simplistic' in stating what the Jewish people believe about God and the Holy Spirit and then being 'simplistic' with Jesus and God being One; I do not understand why you would be caught up by something as simple as the difference of 'is' and 'are'. God 'is' and the three 'persons' (for lack of a better earthly word) 'are' God. What exactly IS your problem with this grammar?

It's the "Three (in Trinitarian reality, One) are God" part. This is grammatically incorrect -- unless I'm saying, "You are God," which I'm not -- because the 'are' is used to associate a plurality of nouns with a single object. This all falls back to the "3 = 1" fallacy. If the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (the points of the triangle) make up God (the Triangle), you must allow for this in our language with grouping syntax. It is incorrect to say, "The three persons is God," which would be necessary under the terms of the Trinity, just as it is equally wrong to say, "One being are God," which would also be correct under terms of the Trinity, but not to logic. You can say, "The three are God," but then you're essentially grouping the persons, which, according to the Trinity, is wrong. The Trinity is NOT a group, it is a Being -- essentially one individual. Therefore, even our English (and most likely all other languages as well) syntax does not allow for the expression of such a concept. This might be confusing at first, but try to reread and understand.

And God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit....but they are all together God. You must admit we are trying to explain something heavenly in human terms...of course all our attempts will fall apart. But, I do not think that in itself (that being our ignorance of a way to describe it in earthly terms) is any excuse for trying to make it more human so we can explain it in a human way...which is what I think the mormon faith is founded on.

You must understand that I am arguing that the Trinity is incomprehensible to us for Jedi, not you or any others I know of. He's the only one who has not yet admitted the illogic and continues to defend it in that way.

And...

See my above statement on language syntax. The Trinity as has been explained here is not a plural grouping structure, but that's the only practical way it can be described; therefore, it is illogical.

I think these two tie in. Do you know what types and shadows are? Besides that...we have many descriptions of God in the O.T. which are groups of three and directly corrolate to the three persons in the Trinity.

Well, considering that they (the ancient Jews) worshipped the same God, this is not surprising. However, the concept of Trinity is even less apparent in the Old Testament. Could you show me some references for these teachings of the Trinity in the Old Testament?

But how, according to logic, could God say that there is only ONE God and He was it and we were to have no other gods before Him...if there are really three gods in the 'Godhead', as mormons believe, and there are a bunch of other 'gods' all over the place. This would not be logical...would it?

Well, as has been said, in Hebrew, 'elohiym' is plural, so in such cases in Isaiah when we are told that there is only one God, that could very well be the Godhead, or the set of three Gods. Also, it could be symbolic in the singular, for 'God' is dynamic in definition. If there were Gods all over the place they would not concern us in the least, because we worship one God and those Gods are not like the Greek Pagan Gods, competing and warring. Therefore, there is absolutely no valid reason they would appear anywhere is scripture. So yes, it is very logical. You have to sometimes allow for possible scenarios and not rule everything out because you don't agree with it.

As I wrote before...there WAS no question that God and the Holy Spirit were one...I did not think you needed reference to that so I went on to give biblical references to the Father and Son being one. (I will find more if you would like...just say the word.) Along with the quotes that referenced the Spirit of God being in us, the Holy Spirit being in us, and the Spirit of Jesus being in us...I have yet to see your explaination of that! Do you have an explaination? Mine is that they are all three the same Spirit. Thus they are all One. I do not believe we are running around with many Spirits in us..do you? If so...what spirit/spirits do you have?

The Gentiles during the time of Christ and after were Greek intellectuals. They also were some of the converts to early Christianity. How could they never have found problems with doctrine so different from their own ideas? The answer is that they merged Christianity with Neoplatonism, thereby compromising. I have shown historical evidence to support this. Perhaps you should respond to that. Jedi provided a good definition of the distinction between the persons of the Godhead. I suggest you first review that. Then, if you have any scriptures that say that the Father and/or the Son exist within us like the Holy gHost does, we will then discuss those.

As I have said, and will say as many times as need be, what scripture do you have saying there was not a Trinity? Is this the only thing you have? I think the numerous references that we have shown you makes it clear if you are willing to look.

Yes, that is one I know of (and in my opinion it is rather good), and there may be others, and there are no scriptures which explicitly explain the Trinity, and there is nothing to contradict the Godhead. I think that's a very strong witness (and that's ignoring extra-biblical historical evidence). Wait, here's something else:

There are three verses in the New Testament (Acts 17: 29; Romans 1: 20; Colossians 2: 9) which use the word "Godhead," which is, by definition:

2304
theios {thi'-os}
from 2316; TDNT - 3:122,322; adj

AV - divine 2, Godhead 1; 3

1) a general name of deities or divinities as used by the Greeks
2) spoken of the only and true God, trinity
2a) of Christ
2b) Holy Spirit
2c) the Father

It is plural, indicating that there are multiple persons, beings, whatever. The New Testament also uses the singular form, distinguishing the two. I might be off on that, so Jedi, correct me if I'm off.

jodrey · Apr 13, 2003

I'm out for the night, but I will get to Jedi's other post when I can. I need to research a bit too, so it may not be right away. Good post, by the way.

straightforward · Apr 13, 2003

Today at 07:00 PM jodrey said this in Post #126

Errm... Perhaps you didn't get it...

No...I got it...Perhaps you didn't get my joke back.

straightforward · Apr 13, 2003

Today at 07:44 PM jodrey said this in Post #128

You must understand that I am arguing that the Trinity is incomprehensible to us for Jedi, not you or any others I know of. He's the only one who has not yet admitted the illogic and continues to defend it in that way.

Well...you do not seem to understand so I can not blame him for trying to make it clear to you in any way he can.

Well, considering that they (the ancient Jews) worshipped the same God, this is not surprising. However, the concept of Trinity is even less apparent in the Old Testament. Could you show me some references for these teachings of the Trinity in the Old Testament?

Click to expand...

Yes, but not tonight...I will write more tomorrow on this. However I would still like to know what you think about the 'Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ and Holy Spirit' issue and how, if we go along with the mormon doctrin, you deal with it. I brought up a page or so back. I think this in itself could clarify some things.

Well, as has been said, in Hebrew, 'elohiym' is plural, so in such cases in Isaiah when we are told that there is only one God, that could very well be the Godhead, or the set of three Gods. Also, it could be symbolic in the singular, for 'God' is dynamic in definition. If there were Gods all over the place they would not concern us in the least, because we worship one God and those Gods are not like the Greek Pagan Gods, competing and warring. Therefore, there is absolutely no valid reason they would appear anywhere is scripture. So yes, it is very logical. You have to sometimes allow for possible scenarios and not rule everything out because you don't agree with it.

Click to expand...

THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT: You would ask us to put off our idea of God because the word 'elohim' could be used as a plural or a singular. OK...so what do we do with all of the other names of God which are singular? For example: Lord, Yahweh, Jehova, etc. You would ask me to base my belief, my faith in your idea of 'plural gods' because of one word 'elohim' which is used in the O.T. around 2,500 times when compared to Yehwah which is used 6,000 times? This is not a matter of ruling something out because I don't agree with it...it just doesn't agree with the God I know in the bible.

There are three verses in the New Testament (Acts 17: 29; Romans 1: 20; Colossians 2: 9) which use the word "Godhead,"

Click to expand...

I do not think I have a problem with the word 'Godhead', it is with the definition the mormon church gives it that I have a problem.

It is plural, indicating that there are multiple persons, beings, whatever.

Click to expand...

Which side are you arguing on anyway?

 The New Testament also uses the singular form, distinguishing the two. I might be off on that, so Jedi, correct me if I'm off.

Click to expand...

If this is the case...where is it used?

straightforward · Apr 13, 2003

Today at 06:52 PM jodrey said this in Post #125

The context may or may not be important in this sense; it's more likely not. Jesus said, That we may be one in Him as He is one in the Father. This is quite clear and I don't see how context affects the meaning.

I did address this...and context does affect it. What is Jesus talking about here? He is speaking of the disiples going out and spreading the news...as Jesus had shared it...as God intended it. Why would Jesus have said, "I do not ask on behalf of these alone but for those also who believe in me through their word" if it was all part of the Promise given by God and set down in the O.T. ??? I do not believe that it was...but the Holy Spirit, and the Law being written in our hearts, and glory to the Father, and Love, and doing the will of the Father was.

There are no indefinite articles in ancient Greek. It's a choice of the translator to omit or include them. The scripture could have also been translated: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was a God." It comes down to a matter of interpretation here rather than translation. If you already believe in the Trinity then of course you'd omit the article a, but this does not necessarily mean that you must. With this correction, if indeed it is correct, there would be found no fault in the Mormon doctrine of Trinity in comparison to this verse.

There is another possibility, and that is in relation to the possible plurality of the word "God" in that context (even though it is singular). God here could actually mean the Godhead -- in that symbollic sense, the three are one God in purpose, will, power, and glory. In order for this to be explicit, "God" would actually have to read "the Father," and that is not how it was written. "God" is abstract, dynamic, and can generally have many meanings. While often used to refer to the Father (this is the most frequent usage), or the Son, or the Holy Ghost, or all three, it can also refer to idols, false gods, lords, or anything else of great power and authority.

Click to expand...

Let's stop talking about what might be and start talking about what is...What words ARE used there? Please do have references available.

calgal · Apr 14, 2003

Jodrey:

A simple question: Are you a polytheist or a tritheist? Christians are Monotheistic (please refer to the analogies presented + the Athanasian creed). Somehow, you must have read into the explanations of a difficult concept that ALL the Christians, whether RC, Protestant or Orthodox believe in of Three in One.

Jedi · Apr 14, 2003

Good post, by the way.

Why thank you, Mr. Jodrey. Those tend to happen from time to time.

CCWoody · Apr 14, 2003

11th April 2003 at 10:41 PM jodrey said this in Post #100

And it begins...

The reason this helps discredit the Trinity is this: the Trinity is confusing; the Godhead is not.

The Trinity is not confusing to those whom the Trinity is not meant to be confusing.  Some people have a hard time because they have never met the Lord.

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

CCWoody · Apr 14, 2003

11th April 2003 at 10:43 PM jodrey said this in Post #101

(The Doctrinal Exclusion)

Allow me to summarize the topic of the origin of the Trinity as explained in the afore-cited articles.

The doctrine of the Trinity does not exist explicitly in the content of the Bible. (For a treatment of this subject, see Massimo Franceschini, Trinity http://www.bibleman.net/Trinity.htm) The early Christians (those that lived under the guidance of the apostles) did not believe in such a doctrine, nor did such an one exist; at least there is no evidence that it did. In fact, the Church was facing severe persecution from those outsiders immersed in the Greek culture (polytheism was then viewed with disrespect, influenced by the writings of Plato, so this disrespect directed itself on the Christians for their profession of faith in more than one God); it is ironic that that very culture is what affected the doctrine of the nature of God for the whole of the Catholic Church. Even at conception by Greek intellectuals, the idea was not well understood and generally not accepted by Christians. The Council of Nicea ended the dispute with a vote to accept the new doctrine as a standard in 325 AD. It was then officiated in 381 at the Constantinople Council. From thence through time and history it has become sanctified as a basic Christian trademark or belief -- it is not Biblical and it is not correct, and was first brought out because of the three factors of Greek intellectualism, Biblical misunderstanding (there were then no apostles, for they had all been killed, or disciples of those apostles to lead the Church and explain scripture anymore), and the persecution which drove the former sides to a compromise.

The Trinity isn't my "specialty," but these things are fairly obvious. There is a LOT more to it that I haven't even brought up. I'd recommend reading over the articles I referenced; they do not enter into as much depth as could be handled on the subject; I don't think any work could. I'd be very interested to see a rebuttal for this, if anyone can give one. If this is settled, next I will focus on the idea of God having passions and a physical body.

"...at least there is no evidence that it did."

Sorry, jodrey, but I am not going to let you hang your hat here.  If you are going to dismiss the doctrine of the Trinity because there was no evidence that it was taught as a doctrine in the early church then I have every right to call you a hypocrite for insisting that the BOM is true, despite the amazing lack of evidence of the things claimed in it.

I'll dare to point out that it is quite absurd to find castrated bulls in the new world when there were no people around to do the dirty deed.  Yet we find such a claim of these oxen wandering in the wild in the BOM.

So, to hammer home my point; just because you claim there is no evidence that the doctrine of the Trinity was taught does not mean it was not taught.  All it means is that, at the very best, you have no evidence that it was taught.  It is nothing more than a "wave the magic wand" debate tactic hoping I wouldn't notice.  Well, you are busted.  I am a far better critical thinker than that.  You explicitly stated that it was NOT what the early church fathers believed and taught if I remember correctly.

Well, PROVE IT!
Or retract the claim.

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

P.S.  Did you forget to explain to me what this means:  And Adam called his wifes name Eve, because she was the mother of all living; for thus have I, the Lord God, called the first of all women, which are many.

CCWoody · Apr 14, 2003

12th April 2003 at 09:45 AM straightforward said this in Post #105

Almost as a side note, as my Libronix Library has failed me, does anyone know where it is said (I think it is Isaiah) that the Messiah would be the arm of God? Is this said of any other 'prophets' or workers of God? Or was this only an 'attribute' (for lack of a better word) of the Messiah? Just wondering...it popped into my head and I have yet to find it. 

Perhas you are thinking of the phrase "Your Right hand shall teach you awesome things"!

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

CCWoody · Apr 14, 2003

12th April 2003 at 09:05 PM jodrey said this in Post #113

In the Garden of Gethsemane Jesus offered a prayer, and in this prayer He explained how He and His Father are One. This should really be the defining passage to answer the question at hand. Jesus says, in John 17: 20-23, "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me." Here we learn two very important points: (1) We may be one with Christ in the same way that He is one with the Father, so that we may all be one; (2) We are not yet one with Him. If we read this in the Trinitarian literal sense, we will become part of God, or in other words, we will become God. We are not part of God yet (or not everyone is, but may become so), so the concept that our spirits are God is incorrect. Either we would lose our identity entirely and become dissolved into God, or the Trinity would then become a Trilliony. Indeed, I am certain that at least some have already become one in Christ, and there would then be more than three persons in the Trinity as explained by Jedi by now. Since we are to be one in Christ in the same way that He is one with His Father, if you disagree that we will either become absorbed into Him or become a Trilliony, then it is obvious that Christ is not the same being with the Father. Clearly, this Oneness is purely symbolic. According to the LDS Church, the three are individuals that are one in unity of purpose and power; therefore it can even be said that they are One God; but they are also Gods individually, each divine. There is nothing in the Bible to uproot this idea, and as shown, this great passage has proven the point.

"If we read this in the Trinitarian literal sense, we will become part of God, or in other words, we will become God."

No, jodrey, you neither understand the Trinity nor what it means to be one with the Lord in the sense of the sonship of the saints.  You are actually trying to read your Mormonism into your understanding of the Trinity, which is wrong in the first place.

There will come a day in the near future when I will speak as a perfected son of God.  It will mean that when I speak, it is as if the Father Himself were speaking.  This does not mean that I will be God just like a son is NOT his father.  I can't be as I am a created being, not a self-existent Being.

That's right. There is no analogy to accurately describe the Trinity. People have explained about fifty to me so far, but they all spell out the LDS Godhead, not the Christian Trinity.

FWIW, I am a Trinitarian and I haven't liked the analogies put forth to describe the TRUE Godhead.  That doesn't mean they are wrong about the nature of God; it means that they are trying to "dumb it down" too much for your sake.  The problem is that it doesn't need to be simplified with analogy.  This ain't hard.  It just requires a Spirit of Truth to reside in one's soul to understand it.  So, I hope you don't mind that I don't offer up any "hardboiled egg" analogies to try and make it simple enough for you to understand.

Why, of course. But let's stay on topic. I would have rather ignored the whole Trinity debate but others were insistent. In order to show that the LDS Godhead is more correct I feel it is more than worth it in that pursuit to show that the Trinity is false, and one way to do that is to point out the inconsistent doctrinal developments in the Early Christian Church. I don't delight in doing this, but I feel it necessary given the topic (again, which I would have MUCH rather stayed away from).

The early church did have heresies.  Big deal!

1Cr 11:19
For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

Your still thinking as a Mormon.  Doctrinal unity was never suppose to happen in the visible church.  The Creeds were made specifically to clearly identify those who were Trinitarian from the Arian and other heretics who infected the church.

Guess what?  They are 100% successful.  They clearly separate you from me.  I reject your view of the Godhead as being unBiblical.  I don't even have to lift a finger to prove this.  None of the Mormon doctrine of the Godhead is built from the Bible.  It is found in the D&C & POGP and other material.

For example:

I reject the teaching that Father came down and had sex with Mary to conceive the Lord for these reasons:

The Holy Spirit is the Power of the Highest.  The Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary to conceive the Lord in her womb.  Mormonism rejects this teaching and reject the fact that the Holy Spirit is the Power of the Highest.  This is a kind of Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
The Father's physical relation with Mary would have made Him an adulterer with her for she was betrothed to Joseph.  This would have made the Father guilt of a crime worthy of stoning.

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

The Athanasian Creed

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;
Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
Neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance.
For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son and another of the Holy Spirit.
But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.
Such as the Father is, such is the Son and such is the Holy Spirit.
The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Spirit uncreate.
The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal.
As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensibles, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty;
And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
And yet they are not three Lords, but one Lord.
For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every person by himself to be God and Lord;
so are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say: There are three Gods or three Lords.
The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
And in this Trinity none is afore, nor after another; none is greater, or less than another.
But the whole three persons are co-eternal, and co-equal.
So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and made of the substance of His mother, born in the world.
Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God.
One altogether, not by the confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
He ascended into heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty;
From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
And shall give account of their own works.
And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.

CCWoody · Apr 14, 2003

12th April 2003 at 11:01 PM jodrey said this in Post #117

Wait! I found where it talks about the Trinity in the Bible!
Matthew 16: 13-17

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Logos, existing in the Father as his rationality and then, by an act of his will, being generated, in consideration of the various functions by which God is related to his creation, but only on the fact that scripture speaks of a Father, and a Son, and a Holy Spirit, each member of the Trinity being coequal with every other member, and each acting inseparably with and interpenetrating every other member, with only an economic subordination within God, but causing no division which would make the substance no longer simple.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, What?

If you will debate like a child, then I will treat you like a child.

Capisca!

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

jodrey · Apr 14, 2003

No...I got it...Perhaps you didn't get my joke back.

The joke was about the complexity and incorrectness of the Trinity. Were you being entirely sarcastic?

Christianity vs Mormonism : Bible, BOM & Nature of God

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Knight

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Knight

Voted best Semper Reformada signature ~ 2007

Voted best Semper Reformada signature ~ 2007

Voted best Semper Reformada signature ~ 2007

Voted best Semper Reformada signature ~ 2007

Voted best Semper Reformada signature ~ 2007

Well-Known Member

Similar threads