Christianity vs Mormonism : Bible, BOM & Nature of God
- Thread starter Grace_Alone4gives
- Start date
Jedi
Knight
- Sep 19, 2002
- 3,995
- 149
- 40
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Just out of curiosity, where is this found? Is this an account from a Mormon source (I'd presume so)? The Genesis account of Adam naming Eve is found in Genesis 2:23: "The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man.'" (NIV).
Upvote
0
Wrigley
Senior Veteran
- Mar 24, 2003
- 4,937
- 178
- 56
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Today at 12:20 PM Jedi said this in Post #204
Ah, okay, so it is as I thought: The passage isn't something from the Christian scriptural canon. Thanks for the clarification, Wrigley.
Non-Christian scriptural cannon? Are you sure you have enough knowledge to make that discernment?
Upvote
0
Woody, I am not even going to respond to your bigotry anymore.
As far as God being a man, this is one thing many Christians would argue with you about if I wasn't here. I think many of you wish to show a united front, but I think there are many who would disagree with you. Each time I've argued the Trinity, the Christians have always been adamant that God is not a man. Furthermore, by calling God a man are you not pronouncing that He has a body? You and your creed are alone here in that sense, I believe...
You're just trying to be dense now. If you are being serious, I apologize, and urge you to read my first post on this thread and its subsequent follow-up by me.
Woody, do you read my posts? Obviously not, since you missed the whole explanation on WHY a lack of Trinitarian teaching in the Bible supports the Godhead rather than the former. If you keep playing dumb, I'm going to stop responding to you entirely.
Woody, you've never even addressed my comments on early Christianity, Trinitarian logic, or Biblical denial of the Trinity. You've shown no conclusive evidence that I am wrong; you've only condemned my salvation like a bigot. You haven't displayed any logic, nor have you cited conclusive evidence for believing what you do.
Maybe my post showed up after that, but I did respond to that commentary by noting that it was of the wrong verse.
No, because it doesn't work like that....
Yes, and no one has refuted my evidence of it. Go back a few pages to my ramblings on the formulation of early Christian Trinitarianism intermingling with Hellenism and Neoplatonism.
History and literature. Plato's ideas became very accepted in the Greek culture.
Actually, it's not. If you're so sure of yourself then go back to where I provided the evidence and respond.
Celestialized? Interesting word. Have they become Gods yet? I don't think so. I'm not sure what has been said regarding that. I think it's very much like what would happen to the Old Testament prophets and apostles. Probably been resurrected, worshipping God, maybe become angels, etc. I don't really know. Sorry.
Oo, there really are people here who would disagree with you. Let me explain to you where the problem lies, Woody:
I agree that the oneness is symbolic. The standard Trinitarian doctrine states that the Father and the Son are the same being, and uses verses such as you stated to prove that literal oneness. Either you are confused about what you're supposed to believe, or your belief just doesn't match traditional Trinitarianism.
As for being the literal Son of God, which you seem to deny, that is true. There is evidence of this through the virgin birth and such; I don't know, it's kind of obvious to me. If I missed something here, please correct me. Your post was a little confusing.
As far as God being a man, this is one thing many Christians would argue with you about if I wasn't here. I think many of you wish to show a united front, but I think there are many who would disagree with you. Each time I've argued the Trinity, the Christians have always been adamant that God is not a man. Furthermore, by calling God a man are you not pronouncing that He has a body? You and your creed are alone here in that sense, I believe...
You're just trying to be dense now. If you are being serious, I apologize, and urge you to read my first post on this thread and its subsequent follow-up by me.
Woody, do you read my posts? Obviously not, since you missed the whole explanation on WHY a lack of Trinitarian teaching in the Bible supports the Godhead rather than the former. If you keep playing dumb, I'm going to stop responding to you entirely.
Woody, you've never even addressed my comments on early Christianity, Trinitarian logic, or Biblical denial of the Trinity. You've shown no conclusive evidence that I am wrong; you've only condemned my salvation like a bigot. You haven't displayed any logic, nor have you cited conclusive evidence for believing what you do.
Maybe my post showed up after that, but I did respond to that commentary by noting that it was of the wrong verse.
No, because it doesn't work like that....
Yes, and no one has refuted my evidence of it. Go back a few pages to my ramblings on the formulation of early Christian Trinitarianism intermingling with Hellenism and Neoplatonism.
History and literature. Plato's ideas became very accepted in the Greek culture.
Actually, it's not. If you're so sure of yourself then go back to where I provided the evidence and respond.
Celestialized? Interesting word. Have they become Gods yet? I don't think so. I'm not sure what has been said regarding that. I think it's very much like what would happen to the Old Testament prophets and apostles. Probably been resurrected, worshipping God, maybe become angels, etc. I don't really know. Sorry.
Oo, there really are people here who would disagree with you. Let me explain to you where the problem lies, Woody:
I agree that the oneness is symbolic. The standard Trinitarian doctrine states that the Father and the Son are the same being, and uses verses such as you stated to prove that literal oneness. Either you are confused about what you're supposed to believe, or your belief just doesn't match traditional Trinitarianism.
As for being the literal Son of God, which you seem to deny, that is true. There is evidence of this through the virgin birth and such; I don't know, it's kind of obvious to me. If I missed something here, please correct me. Your post was a little confusing.
Upvote
0
CCWoody
Voted best Semper Reformada signature ~ 2007
- Mar 23, 2003
- 6,684
- 249
- 54
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Bigot, no! Not regarding you as a disciple of the Lord because your description of Him in no way resembles the "Real Deal" does not make me a bigot.
It makes me a discerning individual.
But I expect that you will continue your bluster for some time to come. If you play nice, I will eventually get around to responding to some of your supposed counter points.
Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.
P.S. If we really wanted to examine bigotry, we would look at the "whitesome and delightsome" stuff from the LDS history. But, we need not go there if you are willing to drop the dramatics.
Upvote
0
Yes, thank you. If you want me to get to older, yet un-answered posts, leave me be for a day and I'll get to them. Point something out that you want me to answer, if I missed it. I honestly have tried to reply to every decent comment that's been made, and I mean to do so.
Ah, yes, I've thought of this too. In other words, there might be more than one way in which they are one. On this I think the definition of the Greek word for "as" is important. Must it include all ways in which the Father and Son are one, or can it only involve one?
1a implies that all ways are included. 1b is very similar in definitiveness. "Just as" is more familiarly interpreted as "exactly as." In other words, "as," "is," and "equals" are the same. If we were to put this into an equation we would get:
We ~> Son = Father = God, and in an end result, We = Jesus = Father = God, or, according to the Trinity, simply God. In order for your theory to work there would need to be one attribute referred to, which there is not. When viewed in context we see that we are to be one in purpose with Christ, but in those passages in which Jesus states that He is one with the Father, the same context exists and can be applied, therefore nullifying the Trinitarian constant of oneness: and this was exactly my point in bringing this up. If you see this verse as being metaphorical rather than literal, why should the rest of the Bible describing oneness also be literal? or why can we not see the Son and Father as also being one symbolically or through a certain attribute or set of attributes than with a physical essence? I think that you cannot apply that inconsistency to mean that the Son and Father are one, but then change the meaning when the scriptures speak of the Father and Son being one.
In conclusion: if you don't see this verse as being literal then you cannot effectively apply that physical oneness to other verses as many Trinitarians like to do. Therefore, no scriptural evidence remains for the Trinity...
Upvote
0
straightforward
Senior Member
- Mar 13, 2003
- 532
- 16
- 52
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Jedi
Knight
- Sep 19, 2002
- 3,995
- 149
- 40
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
A good bit of thinking, however, I'm not that fluent in Greek, even though I have greek translations sitting right next to me. I think we should just believe the Bible when it says "as" and it makes more sense anyway that Jesus was referring to the second sense when he prayed that prayer, since unity in purpose (and the result of that: peace in the church) is essential.
Upvote
0
ATTENTION ALL POSTERS
Currently, I am fearful that this thread is turning into every other Mormon vs Christianity thread on here - which tends to become nothing more than namecalling and boasting. That has not really begun here yet - but it may as we (both-sides) are becomeing overly defensive.
Let me clarify, anger is not wrong - Jesus got angry. Neither is pointing our errors in one's beliefs of God. However, calling each other bigots etc... gets personal - that was something I wanted to stray from.
To all posting Christians: You are doing an excellent job. Praise God for your faithfulness in clarifying His words and carring for the loss. I would only ask you ask yourself "Is this love?" prior to pressing submit when building a post.....this goes for me also.
To Jodrey: You are defending your stance alone - and I give you credit for that. For the most part you have remained professional and have even impressed me. However - you must remember a post does not come along with tone - and tone is always assumed. Lower your defence mechanisms - no one is attacking you. If you feel backed up against a wall...let us know.
To Everyone: We are all passionate about what we believe. Lets keep the passion in it, and the hostility out. I reiterate that we have not yet become this way - but I sense it beginning. If anyone feels personally attacked on this form etc... please pm them - do not name call on the thread.
In Christ
Victoria
Currently, I am fearful that this thread is turning into every other Mormon vs Christianity thread on here - which tends to become nothing more than namecalling and boasting. That has not really begun here yet - but it may as we (both-sides) are becomeing overly defensive.
Let me clarify, anger is not wrong - Jesus got angry. Neither is pointing our errors in one's beliefs of God. However, calling each other bigots etc... gets personal - that was something I wanted to stray from.
To all posting Christians: You are doing an excellent job. Praise God for your faithfulness in clarifying His words and carring for the loss. I would only ask you ask yourself "Is this love?" prior to pressing submit when building a post.....this goes for me also.
To Jodrey: You are defending your stance alone - and I give you credit for that. For the most part you have remained professional and have even impressed me. However - you must remember a post does not come along with tone - and tone is always assumed. Lower your defence mechanisms - no one is attacking you. If you feel backed up against a wall...let us know.
To Everyone: We are all passionate about what we believe. Lets keep the passion in it, and the hostility out. I reiterate that we have not yet become this way - but I sense it beginning. If anyone feels personally attacked on this form etc... please pm them - do not name call on the thread.
In Christ
Victoria
Upvote
0
calgal
Well-Known Member
- Mar 25, 2003
- 2,015
- 48
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
It is difficult to read intention online and it is hard not to feel attacked by the words of random strangers. Jodrey, noody here (as far as I know) is attacking YOU but they are questioning the reasoning you give for beliefs and doctrines. The difference is important to recognize and understand. And believe me we do not want to make you feel like you are isolated. Most of us are very passionate about our beliefs and study what we believe by debate, reading and questioning. It leads to a stronger more lasting faith than trusting a "good vibe."
Upvote
0
I'm going to restart the discussion from this page. I don't really feel like reading anything before this. Personally, I'd like to drop the subject of the Trinity. It was never my choice to start it up in the first place. It's one of these open-ended things. In my opinion, the Bible doesn't give enough explicit information about the nature of God. It obviously wasn't a concern back then, for whatever reason, so it was never addressed. We have been arguing, and only two people have addressed my comments directly. Most of you have ignored my points and continued to point out things you believe support your case. This is a debate. If you want to do this unprofessionally, as most of you have been, please go somewhere else. Nearly no one has payed any attention to the thread rules since page 3.
In order to fix things a bit, why don't we change the subject. Jedi, I believe you have concerns regarding archaeology and the Book of Mormon. I have recently been reading into that field and find it quite interesting. Not everyone is familiar with this study, so just maybe they'll quit posting. Jedi is the only one here who I feel has posted with clarity and logic, although I don't always agree with that logic. So, it's up to you, dude. Pick a question involving the historicity of the Book of Mormon, or continue on Trinitarianism.
Let's boil it down then. "As" is derived from "is," which means "equals." Now, Jesus would have had to be referring to a specific attribute, but He didn't do that. I think we should then believe that He was referring to oneness generally. You say it was meaning in purpose, and I totally agree; I also, according to this, believe that all those times when Christ said He is one with the Father that He was also talking about purpose, and that is where my argument lies. You cannot accurately say that Jesus was speaking of purpose in one statement and being in another, without explicit context saying otherwise. I think we're pretty much agreed on that. So then what's left is where the Bible reads of there being one God, as said many times in Isaiah. This is a decent argument, but then more must be studied by way of what the Hebrew roots were and what they meant. I discussed this in my first post. I really don't see now how the Bible teaches anything about the Trinity, because those same passages can just as easily be interpreted differently. Since the Bible doesn't tell us, I think the next-best place to look is Early Apostolic Christianity, which I began getting into. Again, I'd rather change the subject, but if you want, I think we should talk about what the Christians of the time of Peter and Paul actually believed.
In order to fix things a bit, why don't we change the subject. Jedi, I believe you have concerns regarding archaeology and the Book of Mormon. I have recently been reading into that field and find it quite interesting. Not everyone is familiar with this study, so just maybe they'll quit posting. Jedi is the only one here who I feel has posted with clarity and logic, although I don't always agree with that logic. So, it's up to you, dude. Pick a question involving the historicity of the Book of Mormon, or continue on Trinitarianism.
Let's boil it down then. "As" is derived from "is," which means "equals." Now, Jesus would have had to be referring to a specific attribute, but He didn't do that. I think we should then believe that He was referring to oneness generally. You say it was meaning in purpose, and I totally agree; I also, according to this, believe that all those times when Christ said He is one with the Father that He was also talking about purpose, and that is where my argument lies. You cannot accurately say that Jesus was speaking of purpose in one statement and being in another, without explicit context saying otherwise. I think we're pretty much agreed on that. So then what's left is where the Bible reads of there being one God, as said many times in Isaiah. This is a decent argument, but then more must be studied by way of what the Hebrew roots were and what they meant. I discussed this in my first post. I really don't see now how the Bible teaches anything about the Trinity, because those same passages can just as easily be interpreted differently. Since the Bible doesn't tell us, I think the next-best place to look is Early Apostolic Christianity, which I began getting into. Again, I'd rather change the subject, but if you want, I think we should talk about what the Christians of the time of Peter and Paul actually believed.
Upvote
0
Jedi
Knight
- Sep 19, 2002
- 3,995
- 149
- 40
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
That's fine, however, it doesn't solve a thing and no progress is made. I think a much better synonym for "as" is "like" (not "equals"). When I say, "I want to be as free as a bird," I'm not asking to be a bird. It is a particular relationship between that bird and freedom that I desire, and the same goes for this instance when Jesus is praying to God.
Hardly. Just because he doesn't spell it out for you doesn't mean he wants everyone to be a part of God.
And that is where it comes up short. I've provided an insurmountable amount of proof where the line of reasoning isn't even related to the evidences at hand.
If your referring to the piece of evidences I've given for Biblical support for the trinity, I'd love to see someone try (and that's far from all the Biblical support for the trinity - I just posted just enough as I thought necessary).
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
straightforward
Senior Member
- Mar 13, 2003
- 532
- 16
- 52
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I was trying to go back and find the verses I meantioned in the O.T. that point to three persons and one God by declaring that one God and then listing three 'aspects' (for lack of a better word) which directly corrolate to the three persons as defined in the Trinity doctrine but...please bear with me...I have lost all of the notes I had made on that extensive search and it will take me some time to get them all back. I want to post at least what I have re-found right now and if this is not enough I will post more at your request since I will be doing the search again for my own benefit anyway.
That said, Isa 11:2,3 show the three as One.
Also, not what I was looking for but just as good: Isa 48:16 & 17 clearly shows the Holy One (chosen...Jesus) the LORD is our redeemer and our God.
In addition, try applying your word logic to this:
Isa 61:1 (also seen in Luke 4:18 I believe) has the messiah saying, "The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me, Because the LORD has anointed Me to preach good tiding to the poor; He has sent me to heal the broken hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, And the opening of the prison to those who are bound;"
If we are to go along with the definition of LORD refering to Jesus this verse would say He anointed Himself...wouldn't it? Or...try really hard on this one...are they ONE God?
Upvote
0
I'll respond to what I disagree with in terms of interpretation.
"Paul proclaimed that there is but one God, the Father (1 Cor. 8:6)."
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. This is good because it separates the the functions and 'persons' of God the Father and Jesus Christ. It does not say that they are one, and it could even be said that it implies the opposite.
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).
This falls under the category of the dynamic meaning of God, as described in my first post. Most likely what was actually meant here is "Savior."
"Likewise, Jesus prayed, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began (John 17:5)."
This indicates that Christ's glory is (or was) delegated (or given) to Him by the Father; His Father. This implies that subordination so ignored by most Trinitarians.
"But Yahweh had said he would not give his glory to another."
No, because He is a jealous God; He will not passively allow another god to be worshipped. This does not mean that He cannot give glory to others as the Father gave Him glory. Moreover, we are not specifically told that glory comes from Christ; we are actually told that glory comes from the Father. Romans 8: 17 says, And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. Here it says that we are heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ. In other words, as glory was given to the Christ, so glory can also be given to His other children. We know that this is glory because of 1 Peter 5: 4, which says, And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away. LDS doctrine teaches that glory and power is given by God the Father, and that teaching agrees with scripture.
"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)."
Yes, we give honnor to Christ; He gives honor to His Father in heaven. He is the chief judge. He claimed power over death through His perfect sacrifice.
"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."
The only seemingly contradictory thing I see here is that of John 2: 19-22 and Romans 10: 9. Did Jesus raise Himself or did the Father? I'm not really sure, since I don't know exactly how the resurrection works. I do have one thought on this, though. The raising could very well be a combined "effort," so to speak. Perhaps the Father provided the means of resurrection and Jesus took up His body by that power. I think we simply don't know enough about it to make these kinds of judgements. However, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is contradictory.
"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."
Actually, I've come to Father=God, Jesus=God, God=2, and God(head)=1.
"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)."
I totally agree.
"He is associated with other members of the Trinity under the name (singular) of God (Matt. 28:18-20)."
As explained, the singularity is symbolic of purpose, will, and glory/power.
"Finally, the Holy Spirit appears, along with the Father and Son, in New Testament benedictions (for example, 2 Cor. 13:14)."
Yes, he does. ...
"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)."
Yes, yes! I agree; they are separate.
"Well, I think thats just about it for now. Time to write about other things."
Ah! we're agreeing on lots of things today!
(I apologize for the lateness of my reply.)
Upvote
0
straightforward
Senior Member
- Mar 13, 2003
- 532
- 16
- 52
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
First off...your post was very confusing due to the lack of clarity on quote's. That said I'll try to continue as best I can.
Upvote
0
Wrigley
Senior Veteran
- Mar 24, 2003
- 4,937
- 178
- 56
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
LOL.
We could easily say the same about your posts jodrey. But just because I don't agree with your conclusions or arguements, I wouldn't say that you don't post with clarity and logic.
Sometimes the message you hear hurts. It doesn't mean that it is illogical and lacks clarity.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
It appears we are staying on the Nature of God.
Jodrey - we do not just quit a discussion because one feels it is time. Yes, the subject has changed since the beginning of this thread - but we agreed we would discuss the Trinity vs Mormom Godhead...but we have not agreed that we would end it. Given the last few posts - it appears you, also, have continued with the Nature of God - thus we will do so until everyone feels the subject is adequately discussed. I feel this is fair.
I agree, Jedi has done well - good job Jedi. In addition, however, there have been excellent point made by everyone. Please keep this friendly - if you did not see my earlier post Jodrey (Titled 'Attention All Posters')- please read it now.
Thank you.
Victoria
Jodrey - we do not just quit a discussion because one feels it is time. Yes, the subject has changed since the beginning of this thread - but we agreed we would discuss the Trinity vs Mormom Godhead...but we have not agreed that we would end it. Given the last few posts - it appears you, also, have continued with the Nature of God - thus we will do so until everyone feels the subject is adequately discussed. I feel this is fair.
I agree, Jedi has done well - good job Jedi. In addition, however, there have been excellent point made by everyone. Please keep this friendly - if you did not see my earlier post Jodrey (Titled 'Attention All Posters')- please read it now.
Thank you.
Victoria
Upvote
0
Similar threads
