Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes, you are absolutely right. But you are caught between a rock and a hard spot.Yes. But the question of whether one can see Jesus is answered by the fact that He's human, with a human body, flesh and bone which He received from His mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary.
-CryptoLUtheran
To me, the Deity of Christ -- His Divine Nature -- had no beginning.
His Human Nature did have a beginning -- He "became" flesh and dwelled among us.
What I get out of Mormon writings is that Jesus' Divine Nature had a beginning at sometime (and that the Father's divinity did too) - Mormon views of Christ's human nature fly off into obscurity- in one sense both Father and Son started off as human and become divine later.
But it is hard to line up for a field goal regarding the ever-shifting goalposts of Mormonism, with its field of varying vision accounts and teachings that say THIS one year and THAT another year.
Even the different accounts of the so-called "First Vision" contradict each other -- is it ANGELS? Is it Father and Son as in the picture?
Seer-stone one year -- Urim and Thummim another year -- which one will come out of the hat?
Which one is IN the hat, what is being looked through as the 'translation' occurs?
Sorry, but the scripture clearly has Stephen seeing Jesus, and someone or some thing standing on Jesus's left side. The scripture calls that thing God.
I do not think the scripture says that Stephen looked in the heaven and saw Jesus only. Doesn't it say Stephen saw Jesus standing next to God?
So I believe that for the most part, Jesus is the one whom the Father works through and God the Father stays in the background and is not seen. But there are certain times when He has been seen, only a few times in the history of the world. Very rare occasion when the 2 of them are seen together.
In the case of Stephen, God the Father wanted the early Christians to know that He and Jesus were not actually the same God, but that They were 2 separate and distinct Beings. That is why Stephen saw Jesus (1) standing on the right hand of God (2). It was a teaching moment that lasted for centuries, until the learned doctors of religion began to play with the nature of God and His Christ, and ignored the scriptures, and came up with their Nicene God, a God that could eventually fit everyone's agenda, and create unity in the Roman/Christian empire.
:
You are right, the story of the baptism of Christ does squash the idea that the Trinity is modalistic.
But the story of the baptism also brings up concerns for the Trinity. Let me explain:
You say that in the story of the baptism, "the 3 PERSONS of the Triity all apear independently doing something in the same place at the same time".
You are right about at the same "time", but you are not right about in the same "place".
For instance: Jesus was on the earth coming up out of the waters of the river Jordan(1), God the Father was in the heavens, telling everyone that "this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well please"(2), and the HS was in between the Father in the heavens and the Son on the earth, but eventually did fall upon Jesus on the earth, but there was a time when he had not fallen
upon him (3).
So you see, Jesus and God the Father and the HS, were indeed there at the same time, but they surely were not in the same place at the same time. The 3 were indeed independent, and were at different locations at the same time.
God the Father in heaven.
Jesus on earth.
HS in between God the Father and Jesus.
So the story of the baptism is tough on the Trinity concept, and vindicates JS.
Yes, you are absolutely right. But you are caught between a rock and a hard spot.
If you maintain that Jesus is God, then you must maintain that God has a body of flesh and bone and spirit. Am I correct?
The Father's voice was heard AT THE JORDAN, was it not?
The Spirit descended on Christ IN THE JORDAN, right?
Jesus was in the waters OF THE JORDAN - correct?
Same Bat-Time -- same Bat-Place.
What is to be vindicated about JS?
That he was NOT a Modalist?
That he was correct about Father having a body?
To me, JS seems to say one thing one time and place, another thing another time and place.
Many things that Phoebe Ann has posted in this sub-forum in the past year show JS saying this one time, that another time -- from Mormon writings -- seems goofy to me.
To me, the Deity of Christ -- His Divine Nature -- had no beginning.
His Human Nature did have a beginning -- He "became" flesh and dwelled among us.
What I get out of Mormon writings is that Jesus' Divine Nature had a beginning at sometime (and that the Father's divinity did too) - Mormon views of Christ's human nature fly off into obscurity- in one sense both Father and Son started off as human and become divine later.
But it is hard to line up for a field goal regarding the ever-shifting goalposts of Mormonism, with its field of varying vision accounts and teachings that say THIS one year and THAT another year.
Even the different accounts of the so-called "First Vision" contradict each other -- is it ANGELS? Is it Father and Son as in the picture?
Seer-stone one year -- Urim and Thummim another year -- which one will come out of the hat?
Which one is IN the hat, what is being looked through as the 'translation' occurs?
Yes, you are absolutely right. But you are caught between a rock and a hard spot.
If you maintain that Jesus is God, then you must maintain that God has a body of flesh and bone and spirit. Am I correct?
Acts 7:54-60 New International Version (NIV)
The Stoning of Stephen
54 When the members of the Sanhedrin heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. 55 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”
57 At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, 58 dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul.
59 While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60 Then he fell on his knees and cried out, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” When he had said this, he fell asleep.
It does not say God the Father had a physical form or looked like a man..
It also is clear that Stephen saw Jesus who is at the right hand of the Father, it does not say St. Stephen saw the Father.
It's not that the text is explicit that Stephen didn't see the Father, it's that the emphasis is clearly on seeing Jesus. To say that Stephen also saw the Father directly with his own two eyes would be to contradict the unanimous consensus of the entire biblical narrative as we have it., Jesus Christ is Lord over all things, for all things are subject to Him. Iesous Christos Kurios.
-CryptoLutheran
A vision of the Lord Jesus, in glory, is itself sufficient to speak of Him as on the right hand of the Father, a term describing not a literal location, but Christ's exalted status as Pantokrator
I get the impression that you think you are going to attain some sort of "gotcha!" as though Christianity hasn't had 2 thousand years of established teaching by which we understand this issue.
The Definition of Chalcedon states that Christ as true man has a rational soul and body, i.e. a human soul and a human body--as a human being.Jesus Christ is simultaneously God and human. So, yes, absolutely, we can say that God, in the Person of Jesus Christ, has a human body, and thus is flesh and bone.
But we also don't confuse the two natures, there is no confusion to be had here: God in His essence as God has no body, no flesh, no bones, He's God.
We neither confuse the natures nor divide the Person. That is the chief article of orthodox Christology. So we never say that the Divine nature is physical, nor do we say that the human nature is incorporeal. Instead we say that what is Divine is Divine, eternal, uncreated, etc. And what is human is human, created and conceived in the womb of St. Mary Theotokos by the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus is God as the uncreated Son and Word who is homoousios with the Father--eternal, unmade, by whom all things were made. Jesus is human by His conception in the womb of Mary, as flesh of her flesh. As such He is both true God and true man. Since we do not divide the Person we do not say "only man was born of Mary", but instead that Jesus Christ was born of Mary, for this reason we call her the Bearer (or Birth-Giver) of God (Theotokos) and the Mother of God (Mater Theou), because the Person she conceived and gave birth to is God the eternal Son and Word, Jesus Christ. Likewise we do not say that only the humanity suffered and died, we say that Jesus Christ "suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, buried, and dead". We speak of the undivided Person, as such we are neither confusing the natures neither are we separating the natures thereby dividing the Person. For there is one Person of Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son, God the Word who is of the Father's own Being from all eternity, with neither beginning nor end who was conceived and born of Mary the God-bearer, who suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, buried, dead, who rose from the dead, ascended into the heavens, and is seated at the right hand of the Father, in glory, until the day He comes again as judge of the living and the dead.
I'm just saying, if you somehow think you are going to set up some sort of theological trap here, you're at least 1,600 years too late.
-CryptoLutheran
Jesus Christ is simultaneously God and human. So, yes, absolutely, we can say that God, in the Person of Jesus Christ, has a human body, and thus is flesh and bone.
If God the Father and Jesus Christ and the HS are 3 persons in 1 God, then that 1 God has to have a body of flesh and bone and spirit, because we know 1 of the members has that form, and therefore if there is only 1 God, all three members are in that 1 form.
If you grew up a member of a Restoration Movement church (which restoration movement are you talking about, though?) then you'd know that Joseph Smith's theology changed over time, and the original edition of the Book of Mormon has several verses in it that deeply suggests that Joseph Smith's view of God at the time he was writing the Book of Mormon was modalistic. I, too, was a member of a restoration church, and I, too, was modalistic because the BoM I used was one that was reverted back to the 1st edition (the one without all the changes.)I am sixty-six years young. I know about modalism too. T.D. Jakes has been characterized as a modalist.
What I have found out to be true about studying various cults, sects, and denominations is that different sources provide different "facts." I grew up in a Restoration Movement church - the Mormons were a product of the original Restoration Movement with Sidney Rigdon joining with Joseph Smith and Rigdon's followers coming along - and I once told another Restoration Movement church member that Alexander Campbell was a slave owner. In fact students at Betheny College, founded by Alexander Campbell, nearly burnt the campus to the ground after they learned that Campbell had been a slave owner. I told this to another Restoration Movement member, one older than me, and he insisted that I was a liar, no matter what I used as my sources for this information. We can split hairs but I am certain that Mormons teach that Jesus and Lucifer are created beings. I have studied this too. Even some "traditional" Christians teach that Jesus was created, seemingly without understanding that's what they're doing, and do so by denying the preexistence of the Son.
I know you have to emphasize Jesus, because in a Trinity vision, Stephen would have looked into the heavens and only see 1 personage. So you have to go to great lengths to cut out God and His glory from the vision.It also is clear that Stephen saw Jesus who is at the right hand of the Father, it does not say St. Stephen saw the Father.
It's not that the text is explicit that Stephen didn't see the Father, it's that the emphasis is clearly on seeing Jesus. To say that Stephen also saw the Father directly with his own two eyes would be to contradict the unanimous consensus of the entire biblical narrative as we have it. A vision of the Lord Jesus, in glory, is itself sufficient to speak of Him as on the right hand of the Father, a term describing not a literal location, but Christ's exalted status as Pantokrator, Jesus Christ is Lord over all things, for all things are subject to Him. Iesous Christos Kurios.
-CryptoLutheran
If you grew up a member of a Restoration Movement church (which restoration movement are you talking about, though?) then you'd know that Joseph Smith's theology changed over time, and the original edition of the Book of Mormon has several verses in it that deeply suggests that Joseph Smith's view of God at the time he was writing the Book of Mormon was modalistic. I, too, was a member of a restoration church, and I, too, was modalistic because the BoM I used was one that was reverted back to the 1st edition (the one without all the changes.)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?