Christianity vs Mormonism : Bible, BOM & Nature of God

[Wrigley]

Today at 03:51 PM jodrey said this in Post #152



You missed my point, Wrigley. You have the same right I do (which is none) to say that someone does or does not hear and follow Christ. It's simply a baseless accusation.

Missed your point?

No, you are missing what Woody said, and what I agreed with.

I pray that God will lift the clouds from your eyes.

You say I have no right to say that someone doesn't follow Christ. Did the Bereans not have the right to spiritually discern what they were being taught? Were they not making a judgement? I believe this is the base of your statement. That we are not to judge.

When the teachings of your church is put to the test and judged by what God teaches us thru His Word, it is found lacking. And I can make the judgement that those who follow those teaching do not know and follow Christ.

 

[jodrey]

Jodrey:

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

It really depends what you mean. We are not so far removed from other Christians in this respect as you think, I believe. We believe in one God, which is the Godhead, which is three beings. You believe in one God, which is three persons. The difference comes down to the physics of it. One reason for the formulation of the Trinity was to cover up the "polytheism" as people saw it in the Bible. The Hellenists didn't like polytheism anymore, so that was a major reason for persecution of the early Church. If we use your reasoning, then the Trinity is also polytheism and monotheism in one, Christians just hate to admit it, so the Trinity was devised to dissolve the three into one, thereby solving the discrepency between post-apostolic Greeks and Christians. The only thing that would make us more polytheistic than you is that we define each individual being as a God individually. The mechanics are different, but the gap, in my opinion, is not as wide as Christians make it.

 

[jodrey]

Today at 02:47 PM Wrigley said this in Post #161




Missed your point?

No, you are missing what Woody said, and what I agreed with.

I pray that God will lift the clouds from your eyes.

You say I have no right to say that someone doesn't follow Christ. Did the Bereans not have the right to spiritually discern what they were being taught? Were they not making a judgement? I believe this is the base of your statement. That we are not to judge.

When the teachings of your church is put to the test and judged by what God teaches us thru His Word, it is found lacking. And I can make the judgement that those who follow those teaching do not know and follow Christ.

You are right except for the fact that you have not discerned me, as has not Woody (his comment was about me not following Christ; quite a separate issue from what my Church teaches). You don't know a hundredth of what you think you do, and that is a fact. You have not studied LDS apologetics or you would not have made many of the comments you did. That having been said, you do not have the knowledge or discernment to judge me or my Church. You are not God; you are not Christ; you are not a prophet, apostle, or anyone having the gift of discernment, unless I missed something here, which I doubt I did. I lack those attributes as well, and I would never declare to any of you, openly or secretly, that you do not follow Christ. Don't do the same to me.

 

[jodrey]

Just wanted to say this has been a great topic so far. However, it seems to be getting alittle on the personal side of late. I'm concerned that if this trend continues, this thread may loose it's integrety completely, and none of us want to see that happen, do we? Everyone do please take a step back, and a deep breath, for there is alot of ground yet to cover!

Well, finally, a post I agree with.

 

[Wrigley]

Today at 04:26 PM jodrey said this in Post #163




You are right except for the fact that you have not discerned me, as has not Woody (his comment was about me not following Christ; quite a separate issue from what my Church teaches). You don't know a hundredth of what you think you do, and that is a fact. You have not studied LDS apologetics or you would not have made many of the comments you did. That having been said, you do not have the knowledge or discernment to judge me or my Church. You are not God; you are not Christ; you are not a prophet, apostle, or anyone having the gift of discernment, unless I missed something here, which I doubt I did. I lack those attributes as well, and I would never declare to any of you, openly or secretly, that you do not follow Christ. Don't do the same to me.

Seems to me you're taking this a little too personally.

You say I do not have the knowledge and discernment to know what your church teaches, to that I say you are wrong. Do I have perfect knowledge of what your church teaches? No. But when you have a changing revelation as you do, no one does. Or can. But I know enough of what your church teaches that I can comfortably say that you are in error. I have no shame in saying thus.

Joseph Smith said that all the churches at the time were/are apostacy. Or wrong. He was given a revelation to restore the true church. That you are unable to say that since my beliefs are contrary to what the Mormon church teaches, makes me wonder if you are secure in your beliefs in Mormonism.

I know I serve the Risen Savior. He loved me before I first loved Him. I still pray, that if it be His will, that your eyes are opened. And that you come to Him.

 

[jodrey]

Now I'll get back to Jedi's post of excellent quality. Sorry it's taken me so long.

And I think this line of reasoning is baseless. To say that we could figure out all the complexities (from the micro to the macro level) of the universe, and then turn around and say that no matter what, we’ll never understand the trinity seems quite absurd.

Why? We have all the information we can have on it, don't you agree? Yet it remains mathematically impossible. I don't think the universe works like that. There's nothing in phyics we've ever come to that works like that.

Not really. If you take a finger away from your hand, you still have a hand. However, if you take a point away from a triangle, you do not still have a triangle. The examples are clearly unparallel due to the example of the triangle being composed of necessary truths.

True; but as said, I agree with the Triangle analogy. I think it's an excellent symbolism of the Godhead.

It is simply God revealing different aspects of himself to humanity.

Simply said, yes, but when you start talking about how that is done it is no longer simple.

Not really. God has always only showed bits and pieces of Himself to humanity (i.e. a theophany of a burning bush). My described concept would not lead to the conclusion you said it would, since each part is still God and as such, is divine by its very nature.

Didn't Jacod see God face to face, and didn't Moses speak with God, "as a man speaketh unto his friend"? This doesn't sound like bits and pieces to me.

They are each divine, but just don’t capture the fullness of God if separated from everything else. Saying that because one bit of God can be expressed to humanity by itself does not mean that piece is now all of a sudden not divine any more than if I just showed someone my face, it would mean that the rest of my body is not “me.”

So then Jesus is like a body part of God? This would then be the psychological Trinity that I more or less agree with then, right? You know, the group-theory Trinity, rather than the three-is-one Trinity.

And this is precisely what I’m trying to say. You cannot separate the Father from the rest of the Godhead, or else God would not be God any more than you can separate a point of a triangle and still call it a triangle.

I entirely agree.

I’ve always thought of it as a given. You’ll also notice that the major basis was faith back during the time of the apostles, rather than philosophy or complex thinking as it is now. In fact, Paul writes in Colossians for people to not be taken captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy (Colossians 2:8), and so it does not seem unreasonable that people accepted the testimony of the apostles rather than question theology through intellectual questions.

Actually, Greek philosophy was quite prevalent among the Gentiles at this time period, which is probably the reason for Paul's warning against philosophies: they were a threat to the Church's true doctrine. To say that there were no philosophers, religious thinkers, or popular Pagan ways at that time and place is simply wrong.

Oh, that’s my specialty; my strong hold. If you’re willing to drop everything else here so that we could launch into that discussion, I’ll take the bait.

Okay, then we'll get to it when the current debate dies down.

Considering these were a large collection of Jews who held fast to their monotheism, I don’t think they would abandon it so easily to pagan ideas, and the only thing I could think of that would convince them of such a complex doctrine is the Jewish Messiah himself.

I agree, but you should take note that Jesus never actually explained the Trinity in any of His sermons or discourses. Was something left out? No, there is more evidence to suggest that He saw Himself as separate from the Father than as one being. The lack of discussion on this topic should be proof enough that He didn't teach it, if you don't believe that the Bible is fallible.

Then let me begin now.

I'll make a new post for this.

 

[ZiSunka]

This debate is senseless and meaningless.

The only thing that matters is what YOU believe about Christ.

 

[straightforward]

Today at 11:59 AM jodrey said this in Post #140



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

Yes...completely...as the verses were not only rewritten but taken out of context too!

 

[Grace_Alone4gives]

 

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

let me respond from the Gill commentary.

Gill Commentary:,.... :Joh 17:22 - And the glory which thou gavest me Not the glory of his deity; this is the same with his Father, what he has in right of nature, and not by gift; nor can it be communicated to creatures; this would be to make them one in the Godhead, as the three are one, which is not the design of the expression in the close of the verse: nor his mediatorial glory, which he had with the Father before the world began; this indeed was given him by the Father, but is not given to the saints: nor the glory, of working miracles; which glory Christ had, and which, as man, he had from the Father, and in which his own glory was manifested; this he gave to his disciples; but all that are his have not had it, and some have had it who are none of his: rather the Gospel is meant, which is glorious in its author, matter and subject, in its doctrines, in the blessing: grace it reveals, and promises it contains, and in the efficacy and usefulness of it to the souls of men. This was given to Christ, and he gave it to his disciples: <B>I have given them</B>; as he did the words that were given to him, <B>that they may be one, even as we are one</B>; for the Gospel was given to the apostles, and still is to the ministers of it, to bring men to the unity of the faith, for the perfecting of the saints, and the edifying of the body of Christ: or else the fulness both of grace and glory, which is in Christ's hands for his people, is here designed. This is one considerable branch of the glory of Christ, as Mediator, to be full of grace and truth; this was given him by the Father, and is what he communicates to his; even the Spirit, and all sorts of grace, and every supply of it; and which greatly contributes to the union of the saints among themselves: yea, eternal happiness is often signified by glory; and this is given to Christ; he has it in his hands to give to others; and he does give it, a view of it, a right unto it, a meetness for it, a pledge of it, some foretastes of it, and a kind of a possession of it; for the saints have it already, at least in him; and he will give them the actual enjoyment of it, and this in order to their consummate and perfect union together, as a glorious church without spot or wrinkle, or any such thing.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;


In addition, Woody said it well when he said:

&nbsp;

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

Good Job Woody

One with the Father does not mean being a god. For we are not created. However, Jesus ALWAYS existed - He is One with the Father as he is God.

Yet jodrey again said:

But you're not seeing the real issue here. I know what the context is, but it makes no difference to the interpretation of the passage. Is there a clue in the context that directs us to the conclusion that Jesus really meant something else than what's apparently meant when He said that? I don't see it. He's essentially praying for unity of the heavenly family. That is the context. If anything, the way I described the passage fits perfectly with that context.

I think you are missing something jodrey - the context you describe is inconsistant with the passage. Perhaps I am not understanding the pint you are trying to get across - which is possible. However, looking at all the responses to this particular passage, and the commentary posted - I feel the context we have shown is accurate. If you throw away the BOM, what would the passage read to you then?

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

&nbsp;

Jedi responded:Is Jesus a false God or a true God? Scripture emphasises time and time again that there is no God but Yahweh. To say that Jesus is being spoken of as some sort of metaphorical "god," I think that's a clearly dishonest reading of the text, since the deity of Christ is avidly supported elsewhere.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;
I have to agree with Jedi. The Deity of Christ is black and white all over the Bible. Jesus is God, not a god or one of three gods - He is God. If more scripture is needed for this - I will supply it, although Jedi, you have done a fabulous job.

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

And rightly so, for spritually it is not illogical - only within our created human minds it seems so.

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

Godhead is a biblical saying - not a Mormon one. Trinitarians believe in a Godhead - of course we do, but our, the only&nbsp;God is Triune.

Woody said: FWIW, I am a Trinitarian and I haven't liked the analogies put forth to describe the <B>TRUE</B> Godhead.&nbsp; That doesn't mean they are wrong about the nature of God; it means that they are trying to "dumb it down" too much for your sake.&nbsp; The problem is that it doesn't need to be simplified with analogy.&nbsp; This <B>ain't</B> hard.&nbsp; It just requires a Spirit of Truth to reside in one's soul to understand it.&nbsp;

I agree

jodrey asked: in terms of Trinitarianism, is the Holy Spirit the same person as God the Father or Jesus Christ?

This has probably been answered already - but I am reading posts in order of appearance - so just in case....No, The Holy Spirit is the third person in the Trinity - He is God the Holy Spirit.

Do you understand the concept of Trinity as Jedi has explained it? This is where some confusion can come up, I think. Perhaps you should talk to the others here and find out exactly what they believe regarding the Trinity; not everyone has the same idea of what it actually is.

I fail to see any inconsistancies so far - with the exclusion of a few 'egg' and 'triangle' quotes. Seems to me, those defending the Trinity all believe the sam: One God Only!!! One Being (God) Three persons (Father,Son,HolySpirit).

more to follow

&nbsp;

My HTML Not working properly - tried to edit it, but still wont work - sorry 'bout that - hope you can understand with all the [[[ there are.

 

[Grace_Alone4gives]

Today at 10:39 AM ksen said this in Post #147

jodrey,

According to Mormon teaching, who makes up the Godhead and why?

What is the requirement for membership into the Godhead (a serious question)? Since Jesus Christ was not God from Eternity past than He could not have been a member of the Godhead from Eternity past, right?

Then what was it that allowed Jesus to join the Godhead?

What about the Holy Ghost?

Are Jesus, the Heavenly Father and the Holy Ghost the only members of the Godhead?

Thanks in advance for tackling my barrage of questions.

good question and relevant to the discussion. However, let us first answer jodrey's questions about Hellenization etc...

OK - Now my other two cents.

There are many intelligent people omn this board - infact, I am impressed by many of you and feel weak in comparison. However, there are 6+ Christians, and 1 Mormon.

Having said that, it is quite easy to become overwhelmed, and I am sure jodrey is heading that way. (jodrey, there are other LDS, such as Captain Monori who, Im sure, would welcome the opportunity to assist you)

In all fairness to jodrey, let us first answer his last question, prior to asking him to answer the few he has on his plate. So, if anyone wants to add feedback to that (regarding jodrey's post about Hellenization of the early church and his view on the trillony theory) please do so - I will also look into an answer for you jodrey.

I know we as Christians have a ton of question and I believe jodrey has tried to respond to those he feels he can. We should show him the same courtesy.

Jodrey, at the same time - you have also failed to respond to my post #112. I expect you to answer please as we look into your posts.



Thank you.



Let us all stay on one topic at a time, or try. I know it is almost impossible - but we can try - if we follow what I have suggested, it should not be too hard. please and thank you.



In Christ, Victoria

 

[jodrey]

Seems to me you're taking this a little too personally.

If I accused you of not following Christ I'm sure you would see that as a personal insult, whether you take it seriously or not. This is exactly what Woody said of me.

You say I do not have the knowledge and discernment to know what your church teaches, to that I say you are wrong. Do I have perfect knowledge of what your church teaches? No. But when you have a changing revelation as you do, no one does.

That last sentence proves your bias and one-sided study. We will get to these "changing revelations" later in this thread, but until then I suggest you study up at http://www.lightplanet.com/response/changes.htm and continue with other LDS apologetics sites, as you have apparently not done. Your statement is simply wrong. People who make these accusations are uninformed of the LDS defense against those criticisms, and usually have no wish to be so informed, as thie only goal is to prove the Church wrong. Therefore you have nowhere near enough information to prove anything wrong. I suggest you actually attempt to do some scholarly research instead of studying one side of the argument extensively and ignoring the other, as so many critics love to do. Do you read anti-Mormon material? If so, you may be interested in http://www.fairlds.org/webguide.html and http://farms.byu.edu/templates/library/reviewmain.php Many critical literary works of the Church are dealt with specifically and individually by FARMS. I have been enjoying the great reads provided by these excellent scholars. Bon appetit!

Joseph Smith said that all the churches at the time were/are apostacy. Or wrong. He was given a revelation to restore the true church. That you are unable to say that since my beliefs are contrary to what the Mormon church teaches, makes me wonder if you are secure in your beliefs in Mormonism.

Technically, Joseph Smith only relayed a message; the original was stated By Christ Himself. Now that's serious discernment. Can you claim the Christ appeared to you and told you that Mormons are wrong? No, I really don't think you can; or if you could you'd most probably be lying. So, in actuality, I can say that my Church is right and that yours is not the true Church, but that is subjective, which I openly acknowledge and therefore, I would not call any church . However, Joseph Smith NEVER condemned anyone for not following Christ. It has been stated numerous times by our prophets that other religions also have some truths; the difference is that they are not the authorized churches of Jesus Christ.

I know I serve the Risen Savior. He loved me before I first loved Him. I still pray, that if it be His will, that your eyes are opened. And that you come to Him.

I hope and pray the same for you, although I do so in doubt. Drop the bigotry.

 

[CCWoody]

Today at 01:30 PM jodrey said this in Post #156

But MY point is that you do not know that you are right! All Christians will admit to faith as a necessity, a belief in things that are true but not seen. There is an element of mystery here, and room to be wrong. How do you know that you are not the heretict? Reserve judgment until we have concluded the topic, please.

I am perfectly willing to stake my salvation to the claim that I have the truth of this matter.&nbsp; I am that certain that I have met the One who is both Lord and Christ.&nbsp; You see, I once thought I knew Him, but when I truly met Him, I realized I had been a&nbsp;self-deceived fool.

He is far more holy than your LDS doctrine of the Godhead gives Him credit for being.

Besides, you are misappropriating the term heretic.&nbsp; This word only has meaning when we are discussing people within the visible church.&nbsp; As you are excluded from even that group, you are not a heretic.&nbsp; You are simply...

lost!

Whether you are in fact a sheep whom the Lord has not yet been pleased to reveal Christ IN/ TO you&nbsp;I cannot say.&nbsp; I can only say that until you begin to follow the Man I've met then you will remain lost.

Also, I hope you realize that you just called God a Man. Under the common book of Christianity that is a heresy.

I am not famaliar with "the common book of Christianity".&nbsp;&nbsp; I have, being the good little Episcopal boy I was, a copy of the common prayer book (1660 edition), from which I pulled the Creed of Athanasius.&nbsp; But, it doesn't contain the pronouncement you just made.&nbsp; Besides, Athanasius would disagree with you:

1. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
   
2. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
   
3. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and made of the substance of His mother, born in the world.
   
4. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
   
5. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
   
6. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
   
7. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God.
   
8. One altogether, not by the confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
   
9. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
   
10. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
    
11. He ascended into heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty;
    
12. From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
    
13. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
    
14. And shall give account of their own works.
    
15. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
    
16. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

 

[Grace_Alone4gives]

Today at 12:19 PM lambslove said this in Post #167

This debate is senseless and meaningless.

The only thing that matters is what YOU believe about Christ.

I would kindly ask you to not post here if you feel this debate is senseless. I would also disagree with your position - as one should have the Proper Jesus if Jesus is the Rock of our salvation....which indeed He is. Thank you.

 

[Grace_Alone4gives]

To all those posting on this thread. I just posted in response to this thread and jodrey's questions regarding our answers - please see page 17.

Thank you

In Christ

 

[Wrigley]

Today at 04:49 PM lambslove said this in Post #167

This debate is senseless and meaningless.

The only thing that matters is what YOU believe about Christ.

Whoa, hold on there. My belief about Christ is different than the Mormon belief about Christ. Do we both know Christ?

You have some messy relativism in that statement.

 

[CCWoody]

Today at 01:42 PM jodrey said this in Post #159

I have explained many times now that the word "God" is inconsistent in meaning. It does refer to Elohim many times, but it also refers to other things as well. We don't know exactly what was meant by "God" in your cited verse, but it stands to reason, based on context, that in this case, "God" did NOT refer to the Father. It is unreliable to make such judgments as you just did.

No, I do know exactly what is meant by "God" in the verse I cited.&nbsp; Would you cite for me a few of the places where Eloheim refers to the Father.

Thanks,

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

 

[CCWoody]

Today at 02:15 PM jodrey said this in Post #166

I agree, but you should take note that Jesus never actually explained the Trinity in any of His sermons or discourses. Was something left out? No, there is more evidence to suggest that He saw Himself as separate from the Father than as one being. The lack of discussion on this topic should be proof enough that He didn't teach it, if you don't believe that the Bible is fallible.

I think it is self-evidently true who the Lord Jesus is.

Again, using your "waving hands" logic, Jesus is never recorded in the Bible as teaching any of the unique doctrines of the Godhead which the LDS believe.&nbsp; I, therefore, conclude that he never taught them.&nbsp; This makes them false teachings.

You see how fun it is to use your debate "logic".&nbsp; I can prove almost anything.&nbsp; The only difference here is that my little ditty is correct, yours isn't.

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

 

[straightforward]

Today at 03:33 PM HopeTheyDance said this in Post #169&nbsp;let me respond from the Gill commentary.

Thank you for that!

I fail to see any inconsistancies so far - with the exclusion of a few 'egg' and 'triangle' quotes. Seems to me, those defending the Trinity all believe the sam: One God Only!!! One Being (God) Three persons (Father,Son,HolySpirit).

AMEN and Thank You VERY much for that too...I was just about to post questioning whether I was off on my explaination or just not explaining it clearly enough. I would hope that if I answer incorrectly I would be corrected either by PM or here.

 

[ksen]

Today at 02:50 PM jodrey said this in Post #162

It really depends what you mean. We are not so far removed from other Christians in this respect as you think, I believe. We believe in one God, which is the Godhead, which is three beings.

Why only three? If Heavenly Father had a Heavenly Father than how come the Heavenly Grandfather is not included in the Godhead?

You believe in one God, which is three persons. The difference comes down to the physics of it. One reason for the formulation of the Trinity was to cover up the "polytheism" as people saw it in the Bible.

It's interesting that you use the term "cover up." Do you have anything to back up this claim?

The Hellenists didn't like polytheism anymore, so that was a major reason for persecution of the early Church.

What? What makes you think that the Hellenists didn't like polytheism anymore?

If we use your reasoning, then the Trinity is also polytheism and monotheism in one, Christians just hate to admit it, so the Trinity was devised to dissolve the three into one, thereby solving the discrepency between post-apostolic Greeks and Christians.

So far this is all conjecture on your part.

The only thing that would make us more polytheistic than you is that we define each individual being as a God individually. The mechanics are different, but the gap, in my opinion, is not as wide as Christians make it.

Do Mormons teach that Joseph Smith or any other of your leaders have been Celestialized and been made Divine yet?

If so, then how come they are not considered part of the Godhead, or is there more than one Godhead and only the one containing the Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit pertains to us?

 

[CCWoody]

Today at 02:33 PM HopeTheyDance said this in Post #169

&nbsp;

let me respond from the Gill commentary.

Keep quoting Gill and I will start accusing you of being a Calvinist.&nbsp;

Good Job Woody

One with the Father does not mean being a god. For we are&nbsp; created. However, Jesus ALWAYS existed - He is One with the Father as he is God.

(I struck your word not from the second sentence)&nbsp; Yes, when the Lord speaks of His Sonship, He is speaking about, among the many things that this means,&nbsp;His unity of will with the Father.&nbsp; In this sense, we will be as the Son Himself; we will speak as if the Father Himself was speaking.&nbsp; And it is in this sense that the Lord says:

• John 14:9
  Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, "Show us the Father'?"

The Lord speaks as a perfect replica of the Father.&nbsp; How uniquely Jewish.&nbsp; Philip understood exactly what the Lord meant.&nbsp; Unfortunately, the Momons have made this verse into some kind of a physically identical thing.

Yet, of the Christ Himself as speaking of His equality as God, we read these words:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; You love righteousness and hate wickedness;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.