Christianity vs Mormonism : Bible, BOM & Nature of God

Grace_Alone4gives

Well-Known Member
Apr 4, 2003
895
34
61
Odessa TX
✟1,245.00
Faith
Protestant
Im answering in addition to what straightforward has posted.
jodrey said:
"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.

I second what straigtforward said. Paul would have suggested that there were 2 gods. However, He does not, but One.

In response to the Title God being used for the Father and Lord for the son, let me use a different verse to point something out: 


Titus 2:13-14 ...looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the gory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed....

Christ is our blessed hope. But it also says Christ is our God and Savior. Do both terms refer to Jesus?
According to this verse, the Lord Jesus "gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed", obviously referring to Calvary. This verse is talking of Jesus, correct? If so, God and Savior is referring to Him. Paul would have used these terms to clarify that the Lord Jesus is our GreatGod and Savior.

Please note jodrey. If we assume the word 'God' in this verse - or in Corinthians - means Savior - then why would "God and Savior" be used by Paul. That would only mean he was staing "Savior and Savior" - see what I am getting at?

Now - look in the Old Testement, the following Psalm speaks of Yahweh Himself:

 
Psalm 130 7-8: O Isreal, hope in the Lord;
For with the Lord there is lovingkindness,
And with Him is abumndant redemption.
And He will redeem, Isreal from all his iniquities.

The word Lord in Hebrew is Jehova. So it is Jehova(God), or  also known as Yahweh(God) who redeems in the Old Testement - but Christ in the New.

So then, we ask ourselves, How could this be?...Who is Jehova Yahweh? Who is God. Well, as you menationed jodrey, the Father is called God. And in here Christ is God. Not seperate gods...but God. So, in my understanding, and what I believe the Bible teaches - is that there is ONE God only - Not 3 seperate gods. Christ is called God, and Yahweh is called God. One Being ( who redeems)- 2 different persons mentioned here. The Spirit is the 3rd.


Aslo, on a side note - remember that Yahweh means "I AM WHO I AM" - Jesus also gives this title to himself in Revelation - and in John. Thus remaining God (One God), not three - yet being Jesus, a person within the ONE GOD, not a seperate being

Jesus spoke the divine name of God, punishable by death, and He also claimed that it was He who existed eternally before Abraham, the same "I AM" who had spoken to Moses as the burning bush on Mount Sinai. Obviously the Jews knew Jesus was claiming to be God, "they picked up stones to throw at Him", just as commanded in Leviticus 24:16 where is says "all the congregation shall certainly stone him."

Quite simply, Jesus claimed to be Yahweh (God).


I will continue later....have to put baby to bed and wait on a sick hubby.

God Bless

Victoria

 

 Edited as could not reach James White for permission to quote from his book in a writen format, However, please do read "The Forgotten Trinity"

 
 
Upvote 0

Jedi

Knight
Sep 19, 2002
3,995
149
40
United States
Visit site
✟5,275.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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.

Not quite. It is simply describing the person of the Father.

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."

And there’s no basis for this interpretation. To interpret it this way is completely contrary to the very clear message Yahweh is getting across.

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.

Different parts have different purposes. God in human form isn’t as “great” as God in His entirety or full splendor.

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.

It means exactly that. If God says, “I will not give my glory to another,” he’s not going to give His glory to another. I’m going to believe God when he says something, but perhaps that’s just me. :)

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.

I think this misunderstands the nature of God’s glory, though. God’s glory is Christ’s glory, since both are clearly God. Christ (the human form of God) is given glory, because it is simply God giving glory to himself in another form or from one part to another. I do not believe that when we receive things like crowns of glory that it is our glory that is received, but is God’s alone. God’s glory is always His glory, and His alone. People can merely share in it, and so in that sense, it becomes “theirs” too.

Yes, we give honnor[sic] to Christ; He gives honor to His Father in heaven. He is the chief judge. He claimed power over death through His perfect sacrifice.

That doesn’t refute the proof demonstrated from the worship of Christ to Christ’s claims about himself being the judge of all, and having the power to raise and judge the dead.

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.

That’s fallacious. Jesus said he (and no one else) would raise himself up. Then it is later described as God (and no one else) as raising Christ. Jesus doesn’t say, “And I will help it up,” and Paul doesn’t say “God gave Christ the opportunity to raise from the dead.”

Actually, I've come to Father=God, Jesus=God, God=2, and God(head)=1.

Yuck. A clear declaration of polytheism. Abraham is surely spitting in his grave by now. God screams at the top of his lungs “Beside me, there is no other God,” and people continue to think there are more than Yahweh. He spells it out for everyone, and yet they continue on with their pagan ideas.

As explained, the singularity is symbolic of purpose, will, and glory/power.

The attributes are literal, and this is a lot of pros we’re going through, which is almost always taken literally.

Yes, he does. ...

Implying they are all equally divine.

Yes, yes! I agree; they are separate.

They are separate persons, but one substance/essence. The entire crux of the disagreement is the second part of that sentence.

Further evidence for the deity of Jesus Christ (being the same as the Father) are that the disciples attributed to him titles the Old Testament reserved for God, such as “the first and the last” (Revelation 1:17; 2:8; 22:13), “the true light” (John 1:9), the “rock” or “stone” (1 Cor. 10:4; 1 Peter 2:6-8, cf. Ps. 18:2; 95:1), the “bridegroom” (Eph. 5:28-33; Rev. 21:2), “the chief shepherd” (1 Peter 5:40), and “the great Shepherd” (Heb. 13:20). Paul calls Jesus the one in whom "all the fullness of the deity lives in bodily form" (Col. 2:9). In Titus, Jesus is called, “our great God and Savior” (2:13), and the writer to the Hebrews says of Christ, “Thy throne, O God, is forever” (Hebrews 1:8). Paul says that, before Christ existed as a human being, he existed as God (Phil. 2:5). Jude writes that Jesus Christ is “our only Sovereign and Lord” (The Greek term translated “sovereign” describes power without limit, or absolute domination). Then there's always the passage of Isaiah 9:6 speaking about the Messiah through titles like "everlasting father," and "mighty God." I could go on, you know. :)
 
Upvote 0
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.

Very well, but don't expect it to go anywhere.

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.

There have been some other good posts as well, yes, but most of the posters here in general have not even responded to my comments. Therefore they are unprofessional. Most here are not willing to admit they don't know something, and so either change the subject, or ask ten more questions, or simply ignore the idea presented entirely. I think you can tell that I really don't like that. I even find it dishonest. It's really not playing fair since I have not behaved in that way, and as much respect as I give I expect given back. If I make a serious attempt to reply to all decent comments I would expect the same in return, but most here have not done that. It took pages before anyone actually thought about my Trilliony theory, and multiple reminders from me. Only now, when Jedi and I are discussing it, are people backing him up. I believe that if you're not going to make an effort at professionalism here you shouldn't post at all. I don't mean this to be rude, but honest. If you don't have something useful to add then don't post; and if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all.

That said, Isa 11:2,3 show the three as One.

It says whatnow? Not in my edition.

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.

Now this one is interesting because there's a variance from how it usually is. In verse 16 "Lord" is not all in capitals. It comes from the Hebrew 'adonay,' which is 'lord,' signifying a respectful title to man or God. However, the next, "GOD" is capitalized and is Jehova. That's kind of interesting. Watch those capitals. ;) And yes, Christ, Jehovah, Yahweh, is our Redeemer, Savior, and God. There's no contradiction there of the Godhead.

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;"

Now this one is very interesting. I wonder, is Isaiah speaking for his own here or is he speaking for the Lord? Is there a way to tell? Verse 8 says, "For I the LORD love judgment, ..." But is it possible that Isaiah was speaking of himself in verse 1? No, I don't think so. Isaiah won't actually be opening the prison; that will be Christ. So yes, this would appear confusing. Let me do some searching and see what I can find. ... Nope, nothing! It looks like that nuance has been overlooked (it appears many times in LDS articles, but as a citation for the mission of Christ). I am writing an email to an LDS apologist. I'll see what I can find out.

I must say, good job! :) This is the first seemingly supportive argument regarding the Trinity I've ever seen. This may be a new question for apologists. I'd like to see whatever else you can dig up of that nature.

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?

What I'm thinking is that 'Jehova' may have somehow been referring to God the Father, but that doesn't make much sense to me... But then again, 'Jehova' actually means "I AM THAT I AM" or "The Existing One." This being the case, and according to Mormon theology, God the Father came before Christ, so He would also be The Existing One. This is like my 'God' argument. The only problem is that I've always thought of Christ's Old Testament name as being Jehova, period. Interesting question. I'll bring it up again once I think about it some more.

concerning 1 Cor. 8: 6 ...AGAIN...I think it's context is important. Doesn't Paul write earlier that, "we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one." and "yet for us there is but one God". I would suggest that the following verses would clarify that (in my bible anyway) 'all things' were from Him and by Him and 'we exist' for Him and through Him. It is still speaking of One God...not two or Paul would have said there were two...wouldn't he? If this is as confusing as you would have us believe he would have gone on to explain it ...wouldn't he? Besides...do we need to go back into the O.T. again to see where the One God of Israel is described as all things coming from Him and by Him and that we exist for Him and through Him? I think the parallels you are making would quickly crumble away.


God the heavenly Father created our spirits. Christ created everything else. Knowing that, the scriptures make perfect sense according to Christ being the Creator of the world, etc.

Do you have any reference to whether or not it actually meant 'savior'? If you are guessing I'm guessing you're having some problems with the rules here too. I am about to figure out how to run my computer library so I can see for certain where certain words are used or not used. I think this will clear up some of these issues. Please bear with me though as it might take me a while. Jodrey...do you have some type of reference material for this type of study? It would definatly help if we are really going to get into the nitty gritty of what words are ACTUALLY used where and what they mean. This will also be a rather large undertaking. Is it worth the time for you?

Yes, context. The entirety of Isaiah 43 is about the Savior and His redeeming quality. Therefore, if the word "God" is used it could very well be referring to Christ as the Savior, or one of the many other definitions of "God." I can't prove that's what was meant, no, but neither can you, and that's the point.

He was God in human form...He came to earth a subordinate...what is your problem with this? This is as the scripture says it was to be.

Can you be a subordinate to yourself? Or maybe you can be a superior of yourself? I know I can't; I'm a one-spirited person, and I imagine Christ was as well. For example, Jesus said He came to do not His own will, but the will of His Father. So, speaking Trinitarianly, He contradicted Himself by saying that He does not do His own will, but does His own will. Yeah, oh-kay...

He was God...there are really no other adequate explanations for this. Yours tends to run contrary to the rest of the bible.

We haven't finished the discussion yet, so you're entitled to that belief. When we are done though, maybe you'll change your mind and become a Mormon, eh? ;) ;)
 
Upvote 0
You know what, I have an idea...

Instead of everyone replying to my posts, how about only the people I was addressing are allowed to respond? That way I have a lot less to read. I'll be more specific about who I'm addressing, of course. The above post was mainly for straightforward with a bit at the top for Hope. So, please leave those two to answer. Everyone else can hold their peace, I hope.

I have to go now. See ya's latas...
 
Upvote 0

Grace_Alone4gives

Well-Known Member
Apr 4, 2003
895
34
61
Odessa TX
✟1,245.00
Faith
Protestant
There have been some other good posts as well, yes, but most of the posters here in general have not even responded to my comments. Therefore they are unprofessional. Most here are not willing to admit they don't know something, and so either change the subject, or ask ten more questions, or simply ignore the idea presented entirely. I think you can tell that I really don't like that. I even find it dishonest. It's really not playing fair since I have not behaved in that way, and as much respect as I give I expect given back. If I make a serious attempt to reply to all decent comments I would expect the same in return, but most here have not done that. It took pages before anyone actually thought about my Trilliony theory, and multiple reminders from me. Only now, when Jedi and I are discussing it, are people backing him up. I believe that if you're not going to make an effort at professionalism here you shouldn't post at all. I don't mean this to be rude, but honest. If you don't have something useful to add then don't post; and if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all.

Please note you have not answered all my questions either - and I have reiterated this over and over. Perhaps my questions seem unimportant to you, but are to me. Please do not get agrivated when not all your questions are answered, when it also appears the other way around on many occasions. Also - please allow pateince - perhaps some are still looking into questions you have asked - perhaps that is the case with you also.

God the heavenly Father created our spirits. Christ created everything else. Knowing that, the scriptures make perfect sense according to Christ being the Creator of the world, etc.

Again, you are basing this on Mormon revelation. Put the BOM and all other LDS scriptures aside - it changes the meaning of the text...no?

Instead of everyone replying to my posts, how about only the people I was addressing are allowed to respond? That way I have a lot less to read. I'll be more specific about who I'm addressing, of course. The above post was mainly for straightforward with a bit at the top for Hope. So, please leave those two to answer. Everyone else can hold their peace, I hope

Fair enough. straitforward - please respond to jodrey. And in turn jodrey - please respond to my questions posted a few pages back. Thank you.

All others - please wait until jodrey and straightforward have answered. Jedi - you raise excellent points (as always - Im amazed by you youngsters). You may continue your conversation with jodrey after straightforward has answered him. I will then wait till after your post to address the answers I am hopeful to receive from jodrey soon.

Thank you.
 
Upvote 0

Wrigley

Senior Veteran
Mar 24, 2003
4,937
178
56
Michigan
Visit site
✟21,012.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Today at 07:57 PM jodrey said this in Post #224

You know what, I have an idea...

Instead of everyone replying to my posts, how about only the people I was addressing are allowed to respond? That way I have a lot less to read. I'll be more specific about who I'm addressing, of course. The above post was mainly for straightforward with a bit at the top for Hope. So, please leave those two to answer. Everyone else can hold their peace, I hope.

I have to go now. See ya's latas...


LOL
:rolleyes:
 
Upvote 0
HopeTheyDance:

Please note you have not answered all my questions either - and I have reiterated this over and over. Perhaps my questions seem unimportant to you, but are to me. Please do not get agrivated when not all your questions are answered, when it also appears the other way around on many occasions. Also - please allow pateince - perhaps some are still looking into questions you have asked - perhaps that is the case with you also.

I apologize if I have not answered questions that are important to you. I don't seem to recall any iterative requests for answers though.

Fair enough. straitforward - please respond to jodrey. And in turn jodrey - please respond to my questions posted a few pages back. Thank you.

Errm... Care to repost or link to them?

Again, you are basing this on Mormon revelation. Put the BOM and all other LDS scriptures aside - it changes the meaning of the text...no?

Right, no.

All others - please wait until jodrey and straightforward have answered. Jedi - you raise excellent points (as always - Im amazed by you youngsters). You may continue your conversation with jodrey after straightforward has answered him. I will then wait till after your post to address the answers I am hopeful to receive from jodrey soon.

I'm not saying that everyone has to wait their turn; I'm just saying that people should hold their own in a debate and not gang up on me. Seriously, I've gone to bed one night and woke up the next finding five times as many posts as I made the night before. This is only an effort to cut down on traffic. If there were more Mormon apologists (I wonder if I can call myself that...) here to help me it wouldn't be a problem.

calgal:

A bit cowardly isn't it? Unless of course one doesn't want to hear what they are being told.....

Quite the reverse. I'm more likely going to hear people out if they post less but with more clarity. This isn't cowardly, it's rational. I think it's cowardly to rely on support from four or five other people because you can't hold your own in a debate.

General:

If people are researching, that's fine, but I'd appreciate it if we could talk about the early Christian Church in relation to Greek philosophy and how the coexistence of the two may have sprouted the Trinitarian concept. I know most of you are abhorred at this idea, so if you don't like it, research and refute it. Somehow I think Jedi will be the only one to make this attempt though, and he may even be successful, because I'm sure he has more knowledge than I do about that time period. But this is one thing I'd be happy to see some posts on.
 
Upvote 0
HopeTheyDance

I second what straigtforward said. Paul would have suggested that there were 2 gods. However, He does not, but One.

So I ask you, is it more correct to think of these three as three or as one? I can tell you that the LDS Church hardly ever refers to "three Gods," but one God. This, again, is symbolic, but so incorporated with our salvation is it that it is necessary to think this way. The Bible separates in terms of those individuals, but does not expressly label them three Gods. Remember, this wasn't long after the passing of Greek Mythology, which was a polytheistic religion or philosophy. So unified are the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in various attributes, that they collectively are one God. They are also Gods individually, as scripture explicitly states. However, it is rare that you will find a scripture or comment made by a General Authority that there are three Gods, and I believe it has never been said that we worship three Gods. The unity is extremely important, and therefore it is more correct to say that there is one God rather than that there are three Gods.

Titus 2:13-14 ...looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the gory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed....

What's wrong with this? Christ has His own free will, just as we have ours, and He gave Himself as a sacrifice, that is true. Theoretically, I could "give" myself to be sacrificed as well (whether that sacrifice would have meaning is the question ;)). God gave His Son in the way that He brought Him into the world for the express purpose of fulfilling the atonement and therefore redeeming mankind, but Christ also gave Himself as He submitted to His Father's will.

Christ is our blessed hope. But it also says Christ is our God and Savior. Do both terms refer to Jesus?
According to this verse, the Lord Jesus "gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed", obviously referring to Calvary. This verse is talking of Jesus, correct? If so, God and Savior is referring to Him. Paul would have used these terms to clarify that the Lord Jesus is our GreatGod and Savior.

Please note jodrey. If we assume the word 'God' in this verse - or in Corinthians - means Savior - then why would "God and Savior" be used by Paul. That would only mean he was staing "Savior and Savior" - see what I am getting at?

Ah, now things become more complex. I was hoping to hold this off until later, but I guess now is fine. Allow me to quote from the Book of Mormon. Mosiah 15: 1-2 says, "AND now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—" So this is very interesting. This passage caused confusion for me when I first read it several years ago because it seems to be speaking of the Chritian Trinity, of the Father and the Son being the same. You should note that Joseph Smith said he saw the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, in the sacred grove, years before translating the Book of Mormon. There was never a Trinitarian principle instituted in the Church as modern Christians define it. How then, and why, would he write a passage like this? He wasn't very well-educated, but he certainly wasn't stupid. Let's take a look at some biblical verses.

Isaiah 9: 6 says, "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

Isaiah 64: 8, "But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand." So Jehova is our father. How is this possible according to Mormon theology, you ask?

Another BoM passage, Ether 3: 14 says, "Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters."

Now let me reference Ephesians 1: 5, "Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will," So, in a way, we have two Fathers. One is the creator of our spirits, the other of our flesh, and also of our spirits, for we are adopted into His fold. He is essentially our God. We give Him honor, and He glorifies the Father. Christ is our God, but He has a Master as well. They are all one God, for in purpose and will and power and glory they reign together in perfect harmony. Jesus is the Father and the Son, Heavenly Father our Father, but not a Son, and the Holy Ghost is our guide and comforter. The three are one. Notice the difference from Trinitarianism: the three is one.

Now, is what I described confusing? Slightly, yes. Complex? Kind of. But it is the truth and it is understandable. It "swings" with the scriptures and does not hurt my braim when I conceptualize it. Something tells me now that things are going to be getting ugly... o_O

So then, we ask ourselves, How could this be?...Who is Jehova Yahweh? Who is God. Well, as you menationed jodrey, the Father is called God. And in here Christ is God. Not seperate gods...but God. So, in my understanding, and what I believe the Bible teaches - is that there is ONE God only - Not 3 seperate gods. Christ is called God, and Yahweh is called God. One Being ( who redeems)- 2 different persons mentioned here. The Spirit is the 3rd.

Again, no indefinite articles in Greek, so you don't really know how it was meant, but I pretty much agree with you except that they are individually divine as well and are not part of the same individual essence, but each have their own intelligence, spirits, thoughts, etc. However, these thoughts are perfectly unified in purpose. Essentially they are one God, but that is symbolic, not literal.

Jesus spoke the divine name of God, punishable by death, and He also claimed that it was He who existed eternally before Abraham, the same "I AM" who had spoken to Moses as the burning bush on Mount Sinai. Obviously the Jews knew Jesus was claiming to be God, "they picked up stones to throw at Him", just as commanded in Leviticus 24:16 where is says "all the congregation shall certainly stone him."

Quite simply, Jesus claimed to be Yahweh (God).

I agree, but how does this not correspond to Mormon doctrine?

The meaning of 'eternity,' by the way, doesn't necessarily imply a lack of a beginning, but rather an infinite future.
 
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
13th April 2003 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?


This is post 117... Funny, isn't it? ;)
 
Upvote 0

Grace_Alone4gives

Well-Known Member
Apr 4, 2003
895
34
61
Odessa TX
✟1,245.00
Faith
Protestant
I believe it has never been said that we worship three Gods. The unity is extremely important, and therefore it is more correct to say that there is one God rather than that there are three Gods.

But jodrey, you yourself said the Godhead is 3 seperate gods. Infanct, you continue to reiterate it - so it must be important to you - so much so that you base your faith on it. Of course it is correct to say there is One God - because there is - 3 gods can not equal one...that is your math speaking.

quote:
Titus 2:13-14 ...looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the gory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed....



What's wrong with this? Christ has His own free will, just as we have ours, and He gave Himself as a sacrifice, that is true. Theoretically, I could "give" myself to be sacrificed as well (whether that sacrifice would have meaning is the question ). God gave His Son in the way that He brought Him into the world for the express purpose of fulfilling the atonement and therefore redeeming mankind, but Christ also gave Himself as He submitted to His Father's will.

Firstly, can we compare ourselves with Christ? You speak of Him as if He were your equal. How demeaning that is. I remind you of Phil 2:5 which states He was in very nature God, humbling himself - taking on the form of a servant. He is not a simple spirit who decided to save the World - He is God!

Secondly, we would not argue the point that the Son died for us. But notice how it states "Great God and Savior". Look at the word God - even in context if you will. Jesus is God - the One God, the Only God. I can not conceive how the LDS can say Jesus is one of 3 gods in the Godhead, yet can let it slide when scripture says 'God'. Not 'one God out of three', not 'one of the parties of the Godhead', not even 'the created God', but simply God. How simpler can it be?

Ah, now things become more complex. I was hoping to hold this off until later, but I guess now is fine. Allow me to quote from the Book of Mormon. Mosiah 15: 1-2 says, "AND now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—" So this is very interesting. This passage caused confusion for me when I first read it several years ago because it seems to be speaking of the Chritian Trinity, of the Father and the Son being the same. You should note that Joseph Smith said he saw the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, in the sacred grove, years before translating the Book of Mormon. There was never a Trinitarian principle instituted in the Church as modern Christians define it. How then, and why, would he write a passage like this? He wasn't very well-educated, but he certainly wasn't stupid. Let's take a look at some biblical verses.

Isaiah 9: 6 says, "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

Isaiah 64: 8, "But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand." So Jehova is our father. How is this possible according to Mormon theology, you ask?

Another BoM passage, Ether 3: 14 says, "Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters."

Now let me reference Ephesians 1: 5, "Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will," So, in a way, we have two Fathers. One is the creator of our spirits, the other of our flesh, and also of our spirits, for we are adopted into His fold. He is essentially our God. We give Him honor, and He glorifies the Father. Christ is our God, but He has a Master as well. They are all one God, for in purpose and will and power and glory they reign together in perfect harmony. Jesus is the Father and the Son, Heavenly Father our Father, but not a Son, and the Holy Ghost is our guide and comforter. The three are one. Notice the difference from Trinitarianism: the three is one.

Now, is what I described confusing? Slightly, yes. Complex? Kind of. But it is the truth and it is understandable. It "swings" with the scriptures and does not hurt my braim when I conceptualize it. Something tells me now that things are going to be getting ugly... o_O

Well, I do not have a ton of time - and need to think my response through - but let me first state that I do not accept the BOM as scripture, therefore it is simply a bunch of words to me. When debating a Christian, who uses only the Word of God as a sword - using other material to back up how LDS interprets scripture is pointless. Put the BOM aside, and then we will discuss the Word of God. Surely your faith is not dependant on the BOM, correct?

Now - to quickly respond.

What do you mean by stating that The doctrin of the Trinity was not around or defined the same way it is now when Joseph Smith was around?
Where did you gather this information. I thought Joseph Smith was praying to the Father on which denomination to join....he even gives some examples. And to my knowledge, the denominations Joseph Smith supposedly prayed about were and still are verey Trinitarian. Care to explain further?

As far as Isaiah 9:6 goes (one of my favorite verses BTW) I do not understand why you quoted it. You layed it there without explanation of how it supports your faith in 3 gods making up the Godhead. It applies deity to Christ - I agree...it is a wonderful verse. But I do not see how it supports your claim. Could you clarify?

Isaiah 64: 8, "But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand." So Jehova is our father. How is this possible according to Mormon theology, you ask?

Again, you have lost me on your point here. You quoted the Word of God, then you ask how it fits in with your doctrin - and answer with a BOM verse. This proves nothing for me as you are quoting from you extra literature. And that literature states that Jesus Christ is the Father and the Son. What? I'm sorry, but if it is not in the Bible, it is not true. In the Bible, Christ is Clearly the Son and never refered to as our Father. All things were created through him, yes, but this does not support what you are assuming. Let me ask you...When we pray, our Father who art in Heaven....who are we praying to?

He is essentially our God.
May be essentially yours, He is definately mine!


Baby crying - will comment more tomorrow.

God Bless

 

Edited to add and correct spelling....babe in arms. Im going to rest now ....yawn....
 
Upvote 0

straightforward

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2003
532
16
52
Ohio
Visit site
✟15,747.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yesterday at 06:23 PM jodrey said this in Post #223

Can you be a subordinate to yourself? Or maybe you can be a superior of yourself? I know I can't; I'm a one-spirited person, and I imagine Christ was as well. For example, Jesus said He came to do not His own will, but the will of His Father. So, speaking Trinitarianly, He contradicted Himself by saying that He does not do His own will, but does His own will. Yeah, oh-kay...


Ok...I could be wrong here but when I read this I remember that when Jesus came to earth in bodily form He was ALL man and ALL God. (Although some believe He set His deity aside at times...I don't and so that is where I could be wrong.) In human form Jesus also had human nature...didn't He? I believe He did. Is there not a struggle within us all due to our human nature? Paul writes about this extensively. We do have to be the superior of that nature...and God is superior to us. We subordinate ourselves to God rather than our human nature...either way we are slaves. So Christ would have had His own 'human nature' will just as we do however He had the privlige of the full picture and submitted His human nature to God. Like I said...I could be wrong about this but it is my thought.



We haven't finished the discussion yet, so you're entitled to that belief. When we are done though, maybe you'll change your mind and become a Mormon, eh? ;) ;)

No offense...but no chance!
 
Upvote 0
[HopeTheyDance]

But jodrey, you yourself said the Godhead is 3 seperate gods. Infanct, you continue to reiterate it - so it must be important to you - so much so that you base your faith on it. Of course it is correct to say there is One God - because there is - 3 gods can not equal one...that is your math speaking.

I've continued to say it because it's the concept we're arguing. Maybe Paul or Peter got into the same argument way back when but it never ended up in the Bible. Who knows. It is more correct to refer to the three as one, but it is also an injustice to describe them as being an abstract being but three persons, because this is not the case.

Firstly, can we compare ourselves with Christ? You speak of Him as if He were your equal. How demeaning that is. I remind you of Phil 2:5 which states He was in very nature God, humbling himself - taking on the form of a servant. He is not a simple spirit who decided to save the World - He is God!

Where did I equate myself with Christ? No where.

Secondly, we would not argue the point that the Son died for us. But notice how it states "Great God and Savior". Look at the word God - even in context if you will. Jesus is God - the One God, the Only God. I can not conceive how the LDS can say Jesus is one of 3 gods in the Godhead, yet can let it slide when scripture says 'God'. Not 'one God out of three', not 'one of the parties of the Godhead', not even 'the created God', but simply God. How simpler can it be?

Hope, you and others have repeatedly made this same argument that I have already answered, mostly in statements such as, "See my first post in this thread." Either you're deliberately ignoring what I've said or you just don't understand.

"God" can be a name-title; "God" can be a noun. "God" can refer to a variety of things. Modern-day Christians, and even Mormons, usually think of "God" as simply a name -- the name of the heavenly Father. Biblically, this is not always the case. "God" is translated from several Hebrew words in the Old Testament and several Greek in the New, each being fairly dynamic in meaning. A good interpretation usually might be, "the divine," which is not very specific in terms of names. The reason for this usage was the commandment, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord GOD in vain." Jews considered it an extremely serious offense to do so, and hence we have a few dereferencers to what "God's" name actually is -- but the closest we can get to His (Christ's) name is, "I AM THAT I AM." The closest we can get to His Father's name is Elohim, as it is sometimes called in the Old Testament -- however, that elohiym can also be applied to other things as well. For example, Moses was to be 'elohiym' over Pharaoh. Now there are no differences in capital letters or characters in Hebrew, so there is really no way to tell what is meant except by context, which can definitely be fuzzy at best sometimes. "God" is not a name -- period. "GOD" does refer to Jehova, as does "LORD," but any other times you see that noun, whether proper or not, its meaning is open to question.

Well, I do not have a ton of time - and need to think my response through - but let me first state that I do not accept the BOM as scripture, therefore it is simply a bunch of words to me. When debating a Christian, who uses only the Word of God as a sword - using other material to back up how LDS interprets scripture is pointless. Put the BOM aside, and then we will discuss the Word of God. Surely your faith is not dependant on the BOM, correct?

No! Incorrect! I believe in the Risen Christ and I believe He provided men the Book of Mormon that they might learn more of Him and become closer. I accept the Book of Mormon as the word of God whole-heartedly and I understand that you don't, but perhaps you missed my meaning in citing from it. I am trying to show you what the Church teaches, and the Book of Mormon does that well. I then backed up that teaching from the Bible. I never asked you to just trust me that the Book of Mormon is scripture; indeed, you shouldn't even if I did ask. You should know what we believe, and that's what I was trying to show you. Actually, I'm surprised that no one has brought up this Book of Mormon passage yet.

What do you mean by stating that The doctrin of the Trinity was not around or defined the same way it is now when Joseph Smith was around?

I never said that. It could have been, but probably not.

Where did you gather this information. I thought Joseph Smith was praying to the Father on which denomination to join....he even gives some examples. And to my knowledge, the denominations Joseph Smith supposedly prayed about were and still are verey Trinitarian. Care to explain further?

In answer to his prayer, Joseph Smith saw the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ. They then told him that none were true and that all men had become apostate. I thought you knew this story.

As far as Isaiah 9:6 goes (one of my favorite verses BTW) I do not understand why you quoted it. You layed it there without explanation of how it supports your faith in 3 gods making up the Godhead. It applies deity to Christ - I agree...it is a wonderful verse. But I do not see how it supports your claim. Could you clarify?

I am attempting to establish a connection between doctrine taught in the Book of Mormon to the theological doctrine taught in the Bible. Isaiah 9: 6 says that Christ is Father. I would imagine that most Christians would jump on this to prove the Trinity true, but I haven't seen that yet. Anyway, we are well aware of verses like these, yet still believe in the Godhead. I was pointing that out also. How do we believe these verses if we believe that the Father and Christ are separate? That is what I then would continue on to discuss.

Again, you have lost me on your point here. You quoted the Word of God, then you ask how it fits in with your doctrin - and answer with a BOM verse. This proves nothing for me as you are quoting from you extra literature. And that literature states that Jesus Christ is the Father and the Son. What? I'm sorry, but if it is not in the Bible, it is not true. In the Bible, Christ is Clearly the Son and never refered to as our Father. All things were created through him, yes, but this does not support what you are assuming. Let me ask you...When we pray, our Father who art in Heaven....who are we praying to?

Actually, the Bible does say that Christ is the Father, as I just posted those two verses from Isaihah which support that claim. There is nothing biblical about how this works, only hints, but there is in the Book of Mormon. What's the difference if I tell you how it works or if the Book of Mormon does? Well, the Book of Mormon is clearer... and scripture. So that is my purpose in quoting from it.

[/HopeTheyDance]

[straightforward]


Ok...I could be wrong here but when I read this I remember that when Jesus came to earth in bodily form He was ALL man and ALL God. (Although some believe He set His deity aside at times...I don't and so that is where I could be wrong.) In human form Jesus also had human nature...didn't He? I believe He did. Is there not a struggle within us all due to our human nature? Paul writes about this extensively. We do have to be the superior of that nature...and God is superior to us. We subordinate ourselves to God rather than our human nature...either way we are slaves. So Christ would have had His own 'human nature' will just as we do however He had the privlige of the full picture and submitted His human nature to God. Like I said...I could be wrong about this but it is my thought.

Interesting thought, if I understand you correctly, but then Jesus would not be God, He would be evil; this struggle or temptation that you allude to is weakness, and so if He said that He doesn't do His own will, then He was associating Himself directly with weakness. Remember, He lived a perfect life. I don't think He was weak in any way. So, interesting thought, but I don't think so...

No offense...but no chance!

:D Hahahaha! You underestimate my brainwashing power! You won't withstand our mind controls! :evil laugh: :D
 
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
[HopeTheyDance]

12th April 2003 at 06:49 PM HopeTheyDance said this in Post #112

So let us start with who the Godhead is in Mormon doctrin.
I understand that the Journal of Discourses is not scripture accoding to the LDS, but being that the quotes I am about to post are from the Prophet Joseph Smith himself, I am sure you will not disagree to me posting these - afterall, he wrote your Book of Mormon...how could he be wrong....:

Firstly there is the father, one of the gods in the Godhead. However, Mormons believe this 'god' they call Heavenly Father was once a man:


Not only was the father once a man, just like us,who worked his way to being God - we have the same intelligence as God (Heavenly Father), at least according to Joseph Smith:



Not only that....Heavenly Father was created!:


Now we will look at the son, another god in the LDS Godhead. He was begotten of the father (who, remember, was also begotten). But how he got here is another matter - just look at what the LDS Prophets have to say:



Jesus mother marry was married to God. At least that is what Orson Pratt taught:



Now we find the Holy Ghost, who as McConkie says:



I ask, how can the Spirit dwell in us all if He can only be one place at a time. Perhaps the Spirit does not dwell in the bodies of the LDS? 


Now there are many other quotes I can post. But notice this - the quotes above are simply quotes. So how can I use these against the LDS as I have not posted scripture? I answer - why should I follow scripture when the LDS Prophets failed to do so. Besides, what scripture could back up these claims.....there is none.

Now, regarding the Trinity - I will post scripture - for it is bibically sound.

First, there is the Nicene Creed. Yes, it was completed in 325CE - but based on Biblical knowledge and the Bible itself - let me post the scriptures that support the creed



recomended reading: http://www.irr.org/mit/default.html But I will post it for simplicity.

 

I will post more later - do not want to overwhelm...but I have SO much to add.

 Praise God from Who all blessing flow, Praise Him all creatures here below, Praise Him above you heavenly host - Praise Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Amen

In Christ,

Victoria


Hope, you're quoting quotes. I can't tell if the speakers are actually saying something or if the anti-LDS commentors are putting words in their mouths. That's bad. Do better research.

First of all, Joseph Smith can, and has been wrong about various things. He was a man and had the capacity for fallacy. However, when he let people know God was speaking through him, that was the infallible word of God. Prophets and apostles are allowed to express their own ideas, but not as fact, and be wrong. There is no rule against it and there never was. When we have scripture, it was the prophetic capacity of the man, through the direction of the Holy Ghost, that wrote or dictated it. I'm quite sure that Peter, John, and Paul, as well as the others, all made strange statements back in the day that never made it into the Biblical canon -- because the statements were their views, not God's. Where does the Bible say that prophets are perfect?

Yes, we believe the Father was once a man like Jesus. That is common Mormon fact.

The Nicene Creed is not scriptural because it was not written by men of authority. The apostles were dead, the Church as an organization had died out, and there was no longer any leadership capable of speaking for God to the people. Therefore, the Creed is not scriptural. We may as well have a bunch of Christians get together today and do the same thing; it would be just as open to error as the original Creed was.

Hope, you're obviously only copying statements out of anti-LDS web sites. I suggest you try a little harder than that. YOU don't have "SO much more to add," they do. They have many erroneous claims and deductions that have already been responded to professionally by LDS apologists everywhere. If you continue to quote the critics I'm going to quote the apologists, and a volley of quotes isn't very interesting as a debate, now is it? Besides, we'll get to Church history eventually (well, that's actually debatable at the rate we're going now).

There are points here that really divert from the topic of the nature of God, so those questions should be asked once the main concern is settled.

There's my response. I didn't answer it before for all the reasons I mentioned.
 
Upvote 0

Grace_Alone4gives

Well-Known Member
Apr 4, 2003
895
34
61
Odessa TX
✟1,245.00
Faith
Protestant
I've continued to say it because it's the concept we're arguing. Maybe Paul or Peter got into the same argument way back when but it never ended up in the Bible. Who knows. It is more correct to refer to the three as one, but it is also an injustice to describe them as being an abstract being but three persons, because this is not the case.

I find it is an injustice to split God up into three seperate gods. How can 3 gods be One God? I'm throwing your logic back at you. You say you have answerd this, but obviously not to my understanding as I have failed to feel I have been answered.

Where did I equate myself with Christ? No where

You stated that Christ has the same Free Will as we have. I say that is equating Christ to be equal as you assume he is a created spirit, like the rest of us supposedly are. I believe Christ is GOD, not created, - therefore, would not even consider Him to be close to what I am - I am much lower - in terms of free will or anything. I mean, if He is a created spirit, like us, then why is He in the Godhead? Did He skip all requirements? I dont understand. But regardless - I felt your statement equested yourself with Christ.


Hope, you and others have repeatedly made this same argument that I have already answered, mostly in statements such as, "See my first post in this thread." Either you're deliberately ignoring what I've said or you just don't understand.

No, I just do not see how it explains your view at all. It appears to be based on assumptions of what the term God 'may' mean at any given time. I do not see it a Rock evidence in your case, it certainly doesn't prove the 3 gods = 1 concept. All this arguments implies is that God could mean Jesus , or the Father etc...and it does.

never said that. It could have been, but probably not.

Perhaps I misunderstood your paragraph. My apologies in that case.

I am attempting to establish a connection between doctrine taught in the Book of Mormon to the theological doctrine taught in the Bible. Isaiah 9: 6 says that Christ is Father. I would imagine that most Christians would jump on this to prove the Trinity true, but I haven't seen that yet. Anyway, we are well aware of verses like these, yet still believe in the Godhead. I was pointing that out also. How do we believe these verses if we believe that the Father and Christ are separate? That is what I then would continue on to discuss.

Although I disagree, that now clarifies what you were trying to say - I dod not understand your point the first time around. When Christ is called Everlasting Father in this verse, it is not referring to the Father, for there is but One Father - and for Christians the Father is the first person in the Trinity. This term 'Everlasting Father' refers to “The Father of the everlasting age” - Or àáé òã Abi ad, the Father of eternity. As Barned commentary puts it:
Literally, it is the Father of eternity, òã àáé 'ĕby ‛ad. The word rendered “everlasting,” òã ‛ad, properly denotes “eternity,” and is used to express “forever;” see Psa_9:6, Psa_9:19; Psa_19:10. It is often used in connection with òåìí ‛ôlâm, thus, òåìí åòã vā‛ed ‛ôlâm, “forever and ever;” Psa_10:16; Psa_21:5; Psa_45:7. Father of eternity, is properly eternal. The application of the word here is derived from this usage. The term Father is not applied to the Messiah here with any reference to the distinction in the divine nature, for that word is uniformly, in the Scriptures, applied to the first, not to the second person of the Trinity. But it is used in reference to durations, as a Hebraism involving high poetic beauty. lie is not merely represented as everlasting, but he is introduced, by a strong figure, as even the Father of eternity. as if even everlasting duration owed itself to his paternity. There could not be a more emphatic declaration of strict and proper eternity. It may be added, that this attribute is often applied to the Messiah in the New Testament; Joh_8:58; Col_1:17; Rev_1:11, Rev_1:17-18; Heb_1:10-11; Joh_1:1-2.

Despite the 'Trinity' concept, Do we agree on this?
 
Upvote 0

Grace_Alone4gives

Well-Known Member
Apr 4, 2003
895
34
61
Odessa TX
✟1,245.00
Faith
Protestant
Hope, you're quoting quotes. I can't tell if the speakers are actually saying something or if the anti-LDS commentors are putting words in their mouths. That's bad. Do better research.

I have....now it is your turn. Research out what I have said these prophets once said...if I have quotted incorreclty, I will apologize. Honeslty, research it.


First of all, Joseph Smith can, and has been wrong about various things. He was a man and had the capacity for fallacy. However, when he let people know God was speaking through him, that was the infallible word of God. Prophets and apostles are allowed to express their own ideas, but not as fact, and be wrong.

I would tend to question a man who claimes to speak the infallible word of God one minute and nonsense the next. How come there are no records of God speaking through Joseph to correct his false statements? What if J.Smith was not a prophet? What would happen to the lDS?

Yes, we believe the Father was once a man like Jesus. That is common Mormon fact.

And that, my friend, is the doctrin that tops the cake! the Father once a man? I ask you then, if God was once a man, did he marry? Whom did He marry? Who is the Father's Father. Better yet - Who is the Father's God? And Who is that God's God? And that God's God's God? jodrey, WHO IS THE CREATOR OF ALL THINGS? Ask yourself that very question....how did it all begin? Who is the Creator? I will tell you who. My God. My God is the Creator of ALL THINGS. My God is the One and Only God. There are no God's before Him and none to follow - He is it! My God - My Wonderful Everlating, Alpha and Omega God. How Beautiful! Praise His Name!


The Nicene Creed is not scriptural because it was not written by men of authority. The apostles were dead, the Church as an organization had died out, and there was no longer any leadership capable of speaking for God to the people. Therefore, the Creed is not scriptural. We may as well have a bunch of Christians get together today and do the same thing; it would be just as open to error as the original Creed was.

The Nicene Creed is just that - it is a creed. No one claims God wrote the creeds - it is a creed - a statement of faith is you will. However, it is scriptural!  As far as authority goes, what makes you think your prophet had authority. Let me guess, your church told you that  :(


Hope, you're obviously only copying statements out of anti-LDS web sites.

Im no theologan jodrey and am not ashamed that I research through the web. I have posted your doctrin! In addition, yes - I have posted from Apologetics. What is wrong with that? Is every website that researches Mormonism an anti-Mormon site? I can not simply pick up a copy of the Journal of Discourses and other materials etc... They are not at my finger tips. The web is a useful tool - and if I misquote, I have asked you to correct me. Besides, I could say the same about lds.org and them being anti-Christian, couldnt I? Come on now. Relax.

In Christ,

Victoria
 
Upvote 0

straightforward

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2003
532
16
52
Ohio
Visit site
✟15,747.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
OK...I've speant all day looking at the Greek and Hebrew meanings of God, one, Lord, and I just finished looking at Father. I'm tired and I have three pages worth of notes. I have no where to start except to explain the importance I have found in looking at the context and the words used in combination with these words in order to get the FULL meaning of them. I have never been so greatful to the folks at Zondervan!!! WOW! It is unbelievable to see how we get the words we read in our english translations.

Jodrey...I suggest you run out and get yourself a copy of 'The Theological Dictionary of the N.T.' I have found it to be a good study of word use in both the O.T. and N.T. and also shows where we get those meanings in other non-religious writtings. If you are going to argue what those words mean you should really know what they mean in context and knowing what the words used with that word mean.

This has been such an inspirational study for me! I will forever be thankful to you Jodrey for setting me off on it. All that the Christians have been saying has been confirmed in the Greek and Hebrew. I will go into more detail. There are so many things I could dig up from past posts in this thread that I would end up writting a book!

For now...rather than just pour out a bunch if information...I will try to blend it in with what is being discussed now in the thread...I don't know if that will work though since I haven't been looking at the posts all day and I don't know, yet, what is being discussed! I'm way behind...aren't I? :pray:

 
 
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

Grace_Alone4gives

Well-Known Member
Apr 4, 2003
895
34
61
Odessa TX
✟1,245.00
Faith
Protestant
OK...I've speant all day looking at the Greek and Hebrew meanings of God, one, Lord, and I just finished looking at Father. I'm tired and I have three pages worth of notes. I have no where to start except to explain the importance I have found in looking at the context and the words used in combination with these words in order to get the FULL meaning of them. I have never been so greatful to the folks at Zondervan!!! WOW! It is unbelievable to see how we get the words we read in our english translations.

Jodrey...I suggest you run out and get yourself a copy of 'The Theological Dictionary of the N.T.' I have found it to be a good study of word use in both the O.T. and N.T. and also shows where we get those meanings in other non-religious writtings. If you are going to argue what those words mean you should really know what they mean in context and knowing what the words used with that word mean.

This has been such an inspirational study for me! I will forever be thankful to you Jodrey for setting me off on it. All that the Christians have been saying has been confirmed in the Greek and Hebrew. I will go into more detail. There are so many things I could dig up from past posts in this thread that I would end up writting a book!

For now...rather than just pour out a bunch if information...I will try to blend it in with what is being discussed now in the thread...I don't know if that will work though since I haven't been looking at the posts all day and I don't know, yet, what is being discussed! I'm way behind...aren't I?

Good for you straight. That is awesome. Think I may pick up a copy myself. Bless you!
 
Upvote 0