scriptures ignored by Trinitarians.

[freeport]

Let's make a list of scriptures trinitarians ignore, and have to ignore to keep their doctrine, I can think of 2 biggies that universally get ignored by trinitarians.

John 20:31 but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name.

so much of the book of John is used by trinitarians to prove that Jesus is god, yet John says he wrote the book to prove that Jesus is the son of god and the christ.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

Seldom do trinitarians deal with the fact that Jesus and the father are one the same way we the church are one, because it destroys their belief that "I and my father are one" means Jesus and the father are god.

anyboy else got some scriptures they feel trinitarians will not deal with? please add them. And trinitarians now is your chance to deal with very troubling scriptures for you.

Actually, your probably is not with "trinitarians" but basic Christian doctrine on the deity of Christ.

It is basic Christian doctrine to understand the deity of Christ.

The trinity is a loose creed: we know 'we be like Him when He is made known from Heaven'. But, individual Christians, nor the whole body of Christ is that, by any means, yet.

That is what is meant, however, by "God the Holy Spirit" in the creed.

The Holy Spirit is alternatively called the Spirit of the Father, the Spirit of Jesus, or the Holy Spirit. One Spirit.

The Church is adopted into the family of God through Jesus Christ, by the Holy Spirit. But, the Church is not from before the beginning any more then its' members are.

Jesus could remember creation because He was there. And this is why He shocked the Pharisees when He spoke something they did not know about Abraham... they reply, mockingly 'you met Abraham'.

Yes, He did.

 

[Vanhin]

The early church fathers from the first and second centuries taught no such thing, unless you count Origen who was considered a heretic even at the time. Christianity, as a whole, has never taught that the human soul was eternal from the beginning. Even you Mormons teach that human souls were created through spiritual procreation by Heavenly Father at some point in the past. That's not even the same as what someone like Origen taught.

You are so close. Mormons do teach and it is our doctrine, that the human soul is eternal, AND we teach that we are the spirit offspring of God, who is eternal. We do not have any details on the process by which we become spirit sons and daughters of God at this time.

Here is what the Prophet taught (and it is a part of our curriculum currently):

“I am dwelling on the immortality of the spirit of man. Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it has a beginning? The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end. That is good logic. That which has a beginning may have an end. There never was a time when there were not spirits. …

“… I take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man—the immortal part, because it had no beginning. Suppose you cut it in two; then it has a beginning and an end; but join it again, and it continues one eternal round. So with the spirit of man. As the Lord liveth, if it had a beginning, it will have an end. All the fools and learned and wise men from the beginning of creation, who say that the spirit of man had a beginning, prove that it must have an end; and if that doctrine is true, then the doctrine of annihilation would be true. But if I am right, I might with boldness proclaim from the house-tops that God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself.

“Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age and there is no creation about it. All the minds and spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement.

“The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits.” (LDS.org - Support Materials Chapter - The Great Plan of Salvation)​

Often people are misinformed about this subject. I just like to clear things up where I can.

But for anyone that cares, Mormons believe that the spirit (or soul) of man is eternal.

Regards,
Vanhin

 

[scriptures]

JN10:30 (NCMM)

I and the Father, we are in perfect unity.

Trinitarians ignore this verse.

 

[Breetai]

You are so close. Mormons do teach and it is our doctrine, that the human soul is eternal, AND we teach that we are the spirit offspring of God, who is eternal. We do not have any details on the process by which we become spirit sons and daughters of God at this time.

Here is what the Prophet taught (and it is a part of our curriculum currently):

“I am dwelling on the immortality of the spirit of man. Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it has a beginning? The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end. That is good logic. That which has a beginning may have an end. There never was a time when there were not spirits. …

“… I take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man—the immortal part, because it had no beginning. Suppose you cut it in two; then it has a beginning and an end; but join it again, and it continues one eternal round. So with the spirit of man. As the Lord liveth, if it had a beginning, it will have an end. All the fools and learned and wise men from the beginning of creation, who say that the spirit of man had a beginning, prove that it must have an end; and if that doctrine is true, then the doctrine of annihilation would be true. But if I am right, I might with boldness proclaim from the house-tops that God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself.

“Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age and there is no creation about it. All the minds and spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement.

“The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits.” (LDS.org - Support Materials Chapter - The Great Plan of Salvation)​

Often people are misinformed about this subject. I just like to clear things up where I can.

But for anyone that cares, Mormons believe that the spirit (or soul) of man is eternal.

Regards,
Vanhin

You know, Vanhin, when I was going through the courses that you LDS missionaries give... oh, probably 12 years or so ago now, I remember the song, "O My Father," by Eliza R. Snow (yes, I had to look up the title and song writer). It talks about us having not only Heavenly Father in (Celestial) heaven , but also a mother. This is in line with someone like President Joseph F. Smith's (not the original Joseph Smith Jr.!!!) statements that "man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father" and that "all men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother, and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity". I'm aware that the words of the LDS prophets are considered to be as good as scripture, so I'm confident in quoting Joseph F. Smith. Just in case you don't agree with the late prophet, this same idea also appears directly in LDS scripture within the D&C; "For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father--That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God." -Doctrine & Covenants 76:23-24.

If the definition of "eternal" means "having always existed in the past and into the future", then Mormon doctrine itself denies that idea. Hey, this is something that us orthodox Christians and the LDS can agree on! Human souls were created at some point in the past. The main difference, of course, being that Christianity teaches that our souls were created at our conception within our mother's womb, and Mormon theology teaches that our souls were created at a heavenly, spiritual conception.

Now, before you jump on me by saying that "but Breetai, that scripture you quoted doesn't say that human souls weren't non-existant before spiritual conception in heaven!", take a look at things again. In LDS theology, we are the spiritual children of Heavenly Father and our respective heavenly mother born into our earthly bodies through conception from our earthly parents. Did you see that? We are living in physical bodies here on earth, but were previously born into spiritual bodies sometime before our physical birth on earth. How can our souls have existed before our birth from our spiritual mother in heaven? That is the birth of our souls! For this reason, I will also quote the first LDS prophet, Joseph Smith Jr., here, in order to show that the LDS view of man is dualistic (body and soul/spirit; not body, soul and spirit):

A very material difference [exists] between the body and the spirit; the body is supposed to be organized matter, and the spirit, by many, is thought to be immaterial, without substance. With this latter statement we should beg leave to differ, and state the spirit is a substance; that it is material, but that it is more pure, elastic and refined matter than the body; that it existed before the body, can exist in the body; and will exist separate from the body, when the body will be mouldering in the dust; and will in the resurrection, be again united with it.
-Teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith. p207

The scripture that you quoted is also from D&C (93:29), but notice that is uses the word "spirits". Now, look at the scripture that I quoted again from D&C 76: "...man, as a spirit, was begotten..."
"...the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God..."


From my reading of D&C 93, I'm thinking that it's not saying that the spirits of individual men are eternal... but that the spirits of men in gereral have always existed. That is the only way I can think of to logically rectify D&C 76 with chapter 93 without going back to the original language it was apparently written in. Unfortunately, the D&C wasn't written in ancient Greek or Hebrew, it was written in "Reformed Egyptian"; a language which nobody believes existed outside of the Mormon faith(s). We simply have to rely on the current English version.

 

[Breetai]

JN10:30 (NCMM)

I and the Father, we are in perfect unity.

Trinitarians ignore this verse.

If you're going to quote something, at least quote from a clear version!!! I use "The Greek New Testament: Fourth Revised Edition" coupled with the KJV, NRSV and the NIV for reference. I'm sure 2ducklow uses a similar combination. The Greek version does not say "unity". That the bias of the translators of the NCMM coming through. The Greek version says "I and the Father are one." It's that simply. In trinitarian thought, this means that Jesus is God, that the Father is God, and that there is One God. Same as you, of course. So, by showing this verse, you've shown nothing other than an overly complicated version of a very short and simple, yet significant, verse. Trinitarians looks at scripture like Philippians chapter 2 ([FONT=arial,helvetica]"Who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.[/FONT]) and on the attributes of Christ and conclude that, although Jesus is God and there is only One God, that Jesus is not the Father. They are one in that they are both God, but the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father.

You can deny that all you want, but that is how trinitarians look at it. There is not part of scripture that should be ignored, as is claimed that trinitarians do in this thread.

 

[Vanhin]

You know, Vanhin, when I was going through the courses that you LDS missionaries give... oh, probably 12 years or so ago now, I remember the song, "O My Father," by Eliza R. Snow (yes, I had to look up the title and song writer). It talks about us having not only Heavenly Father in (Celestial) heaven , but also a mother. This is in line with someone like President Joseph F. Smith's (not the original Joseph Smith Jr.!!!) statements that "man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father" and that "all men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother, and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity". I'm aware that the words of the LDS prophets are considered to be as good as scripture, so I'm confident in quoting Joseph F. Smith. Just in case you don't agree with the late prophet, this same idea also appears directly in LDS scripture within the D&C; "For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father--That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God." -Doctrine & Covenants 76:23-24.

If the definition of "eternal" means "having always existed in the past and into the future", then Mormon doctrine itself denies that idea. Hey, this is something that us orthodox Christians and the LDS can agree on! Human souls were created at some point in the past. The main difference, of course, being that Christianity teaches that our souls were created at our conception within our mother's womb, and Mormon theology teaches that our souls were created at a heavenly, spiritual conception.

Now, before you jump on me by saying that "but Breetai, that scripture you quoted doesn't say that human souls weren't non-existant before spiritual conception in heaven!", take a look at things again. In LDS theology, we are the spiritual children of Heavenly Father and our respective heavenly mother born into our earthly bodies through conception from our earthly parents. Did you see that? We are living in physical bodies here on earth, but were previously born into spiritual bodies sometime before our physical birth on earth. How can our souls have existed before our birth from our spiritual mother in heaven? That is the birth of our souls! For this reason, I will also quote the first LDS prophet, Joseph Smith Jr., here, in order to show that the LDS view of man is dualistic (body and soul/spirit; not body, soul and spirit):




The scripture that you quoted is also from D&C (93:29), but notice that is uses the word "spirits". Now, look at the scripture that I quoted again from D&C 76: "...man, as a spirit, was begotten..."
"...the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God..."


From my reading of D&C 93, I'm thinking that it's not saying that the spirits of individual men are eternal... but that the spirits of men in gereral have always existed. That is the only way I can think of to logically rectify D&C 76 with chapter 93 without going back to the original language it was apparently written in. Unfortunately, the D&C wasn't written in ancient Greek or Hebrew, it was written in "Reformed Egyptian"; a language which nobody believes existed outside of the Mormon faith(s). We simply have to rely on the current English version.

The Doctrine and Covenants were never written in "reformed Egyptian"... You are thinking of the "gold plates" from which the Book of Mormon was translated. The Doctrine and Covenants represent direct revelation to Joseph Smith and others, and English is the original language of that volume of scripture. Since we believe in continuing revelation, any new direct revelation that our prophet receives, will be added to the Doctrine and Covenants. That was just one example.

You are certainly entitled to interpret our scriptures any way that you like, and I invite you to continue, by all means...

Mormons, on the other hand, believe and teach that we are the offspring of heavenly parents, which means we have a heavenly mother, AND we also teach that the spirit of man is immortal and eternal. We have always existed. A part of the quote I posted gives us some clues about how that can be:

The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits.​

From our Scriptures:

Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. (D&C 93:29)​

It's not that strange to say our spirits are begotten even though they existed prior. Here in mortality, for example, those who covenant with God through the ordinances of baptism and confirmation, become sons and daughters of Christ - children of Christ.

We simply don't know the details of everything yet. The bottom line is, Mormons believe and teach that the spirit of man did not have a beginning and will not have an end. We are eternal. One day we will know though:

“If you are reverent and prayerful and obedient, the day will come when there will be revealed to you why the God of heaven has commanded us to address him as Father, and the Lord of the Universe as Son. Then you will have discovered the Pearl of Great Price spoken of in the scriptures and willingly go and sell all that you have that you might obtain it.” (Boyd K. Packer, "The Shield of Faith," Ensign - May 1995: 7)​

Nice try though...

Regards,
Vanhin

 

[Breetai]

The Doctrine and Covenants were never written in "reformed Egyptian"... You are thinking of the "gold plates" from which the Book of Mormon was translated.

I guess it's been awhile. BoM and PoGP (Book of Abraham). You're right, of course.

Nice try though...

Regards,
Vanhin

Thanks. I've never really looked into this facet of your faith before. I really don't get the logic of it, to be honest, but oh well. I do think just these few posts between us have shown, though, how different our belief systems really are. It's interesting at the very least!

 

[Vanhin]

I guess it's been awhile. BoM and PoGP (Book of Abraham). You're right, of course.

Honest mistake actually. No big deal.

Thanks. I've never really looked into this facet of your faith before. I really don't get the logic of it, to be honest, but oh well. I do think just these few posts between us have shown, though, how different our belief systems really are. It's interesting at the very least!

I was looking over your previous post, and I will admit that I do see that you were sincerely trying to give your take based on our sources. At first I wasn't so sure about that. I'm glad I re-evaluated and realized that. I'm so used to people not actually trying to understand us, so I am pleasantly surprised. You were not that far off.

Though we believe in continuing revelation, Mormons will admit that all things have not been revealed to us yet. So, we currently have limits on our understanding of both where we came from and where we are going. This doctrine, like that of what it really means to become as God is, is on the edge of our understanding and revealed truth. So, often we are left to our own speculation based on what we do know. Because of that, all kinds of ideas appear in Mormon thought about things not revealed to us.

The following truths are in harmony with our scriptures. Since you are familiar with our scriptures, I have included references for your enjoyment.

1) Spirit is matter, and is tangible and eternal. It is sometimes referred to as intelligence in our scriptures. (D&C 131:7-8, D&C 93:29-30)

2) Our spirits are composed of this spirit matter, and thus we are eternal. (D&C 93:33, Abr. 3:22-23)

3) At some point, we were begotten as spirit children of God the Father, but we don't know the details of how that happens. This could very well be a literal birth or a covenant relationship, or both. We really don't know. (The Family: A Proclamation to the World)

3) Physical element is eternal as well. (D&C 93:33)

4) Our physical bodies are created from existing physical matter (dust of the earth). (Gen. 2:7, Abr. 5:7)

5) Spirit and physical element inseparably united is the only way for us to receive a fullness of joy. (D&C 93:33)​

That leads to one of the primary purposes of mortal life for us. We are here to gain a body. But that is another topic.

It is our belief that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost are three separate individual personages, but unified as one in purpose and love for us.

The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us. (D&C 130:22)​

They are One God to us in every other way but substance.

Sincerely,
Vanhin

 

[Breetai]

Honest mistake actually. No big deal.


I was looking over your previous post, and I will admit that I do see that you were sincerely trying to give your take based on our sources. At first I wasn't so sure about that. I'm glad I re-evaluated and realized that. I'm so used to people not actually trying to understand us, so I am pleasantly surprised. You were not that far off.

Well, if you've read many of my posts in this section on and off in the past going on 6 years, you'd be well of to be weary of my intentions! I'm not Mormon at all and I have a lot of problems with the LDS and other Mormon teachings to the point where I can't honestly call the LDS church a Christian church (although I will never intentionally call a Mormon individual outside of God's saving grace, if you follow). Yet, many of my close friends in life have been LDS, I regularly attended an LDS youth group, its special events and services when I was in high school and find the Mormon faith fascinating. Perhaps I'm an LDS fanboy even though I disagree with its teachings? A bit of a paradox, to be sure! Everytime I come into contact with LDS missionaries I enjoy chatting with them and, even though we disagree on things, always part on good terms. Except a very few people, every LDS I've met has been very kind and welcoming to me... whether it's into their home for a meal, or just a quick chat. I'm very interested about the development of Mormon theology and its intecrecies. I don't have the time to go in depth as I'd like, but I do enjoy my periodical studies of it. So, thank you for taking a second look at what I wrote and taking it seriously. While I'm always trying to point out flaws and contraditions in LDS scripture and teachings, part of the reason is out of my fasination with it and my genuine love and friendship with quite a few Mormons. I am also trying to understand!!!

Though we believe in continuing revelation, Mormons will admit that all things have not been revealed to us yet. So, we currently have limits on our understanding of both where we came from and where we are going. This doctrine, like that of what it really means to become as God is, is on the edge of our understanding and revealed truth. So, often we are left to our own speculation based on what we do know. Because of that, all kinds of ideas appear in Mormon thought about things not revealed to us.

The following truths are in harmony with our scriptures. Since you are familiar with our scriptures, I have included references for your enjoyment.

1) Spirit is matter, and is tangible and eternal. It is sometimes referred to as intelligence in our scriptures. (D&C 131:7-8, D&C 93:29-30)

2) Our spirits are composed of this spirit matter, and thus we are eternal. (D&C 93:33, Abr. 3:22-23)

3) At some point, we were begotten as spirit children of God the Father, but we don't know the details of how that happens. This could very well be a literal birth or a covenant relationship, or both. We really don't know. (The Family: A Proclamation to the World)

3) Physical element is eternal as well. (D&C 93:33)

4) Our physical bodies are created from existing physical matter (dust of the earth). (Gen. 2:7, Abr. 5:7)

5) Spirit and physical element inseparably united is the only way for us to receive a fullness of joy. (D&C 93:33)​

That leads to one of the primary purposes of mortal life for us. We are here to gain a body. But that is another topic.

It is our belief that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost are three separate individual personages, but unified as one in purpose and love for us.

The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us. (D&C 130:22)​

They are One God to us in every other way but substance.

Sincerely,
Vanhin[/quote]Thanks for that post Vanhin. I don't have much of a response to it, as it wasn't presented in a debatable manner, but I did look it over and it's interesting for me. I now know more about a small part of LDS theology that I didn't know before.

 

[Vanhin]

Breetai,

Right on brother. I have gained a greater respect for you through this exchange than perhaps from previous interactions (long time ago).

I am saddened that you can not view us as Christian. I hope that through your studies of our religion, you will at least come to know that we are, in very deed, Christians.

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. (John 13:34-34)​

Jesus Christ is the central figure of our religion, and central in our Heavenly Father's plan, and my desire is to worship Him with all my heart, might, mind, and strength. Without Christ, nothing is possible, and I think we can agree on that.

Sincerely,
Vanhin

 

[Breetai]

Jesus Christ is the central figure of our religion, and central in our Heavenly Father's plan, and my desire is to worship Him with all my heart, might, mind, and strength. Without Christ, nothing is possible, and I think we can agree on that.

Sincerely,
Vanhin

Thank you.

As you probably know, it's because the differences between the orthodox Christian and the Mormon concepts of Christ and of the Father are so great, that I don't think they can be considered the same entity. Therefore, we belong to different religions in my point of view. I logically can't say anything better. Now, from my side... I don't know, and I don't like to think, that God would condemn someone who puts their faith into Christ as they've come to believe Him as (I know the LDS probably would say that I've got no shot at celestial glory since I've rejected the LDS truths). I hope I don't come off as condescending, but the thief on the cross was obviously saved and it's very unlikely that he had fully understood who Christ was; but he did realize that Christ could save him, so he put his faith in Christ. I don't think my point of view here has really changed in a long time, but I hope that I've become gentler and more respectful in saying it.

 

[Vanhin]

Thank you.

As you probably know, it's because the differences between the orthodox Christian and the Mormon concepts of Christ and of the Father are so great, that I don't think they can be considered the same entity. Therefore, we belong to different religions in my point of view. I logically can't say anything better. Now, from my side... I don't know, and I don't like to think, that God would condemn someone who puts their faith into Christ as they've come to believe Him as (I know the LDS probably would say that I've got no shot at celestial glory since I've rejected the LDS truths). I hope I don't come off as condescending, but the thief on the cross was obviously saved and it's very unlikely that he had fully understood who Christ was; but he did realize that Christ could save him, so he put his faith in Christ. I don't think my point of view here has really changed in a long time, but I hope that I've become gentler and more respectful in saying it.

Fair enough.

Regards,
Vanhin

 

[scriptures]

If you're going to quote something, at least quote from a clear version!!! I use "The Greek New Testament: Fourth Revised Edition" coupled with the KJV, NRSV and the NIV for reference. I'm sure 2ducklow uses a similar combination. The Greek version does not say "unity". That the bias of the translators of the NCMM coming through. The Greek version says "I and the Father are one." It's that simply. In trinitarian thought, this means that Jesus is God, that the Father is God, and that there is One God. Same as you, of course. So, by showing this verse, you've shown nothing other than an overly complicated version of a very short and simple, yet significant, verse. Trinitarians looks at scripture like Philippians chapter 2 ([FONT=arial,helvetica]"Who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.[/FONT]) and on the attributes of Christ and conclude that, although Jesus is God and there is only One God, that Jesus is not the Father. They are one in that they are both God, but the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father.

You can deny that all you want, but that is how trinitarians look at it. There is not part of scripture that should be ignored, as is claimed that trinitarians do in this thread.

John 10:30 - I and the Father are one.

It means they are in perfect unity

 

[Breetai]

John 10:30 - I and the Father are one.

It means they are in perfect unity

Is that not eisegesis on your part? How did you come to the conclusion that it means that, and just what do you mean by "perfect unity"? There are a number of ways to take that.

 

[2ducklow]

If you're going to quote something, at least quote from a clear version!!! I use "The Greek New Testament: Fourth Revised Edition" coupled with the KJV, NRSV and the NIV for reference. I'm sure 2ducklow uses a similar combination. The Greek version does not say "unity". That the bias of the translators of the NCMM coming through. The Greek version says "I and the Father are one." It's that simply. In trinitarian thought, this means that Jesus is God, that the Father is God, and that there is One God. Same as you, of course. So, by showing this verse, you've shown nothing other than an overly complicated version of a very short and simple, yet significant, verse. Trinitarians looks at scripture like Philippians chapter 2 ([FONT=arial,helvetica]"Who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.[/FONT]) and on the attributes of Christ and conclude that, although Jesus is God and there is only One God, that Jesus is not the Father. They are one in that they are both God, but the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father.

You can deny that all you want, but that is how trinitarians look at it. There is not part of scripture that should be ignored, as is claimed that trinitarians do in this thread.

your explanation of how Jesus and the father are one ignores this scripture.

John 17:22 And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they may be one, even as we are one;

you are saying that 2 gods are one god, or 2 persons of god are one god. Thus you ignore john 17.22 which states that we the church are to be one the same way the father and the son are one. so if the father and the son are one g od, one being, then we the church are one person one being. which of course cannot be. if on the other hand the church is to be one in purpose, and unity of beliefs, then likewise that means the father and the son are one in purpose and beliefs. thus you ignorej ohn 17.22

 

[Vanhin]

your explanation of how Jesus and the father are one ignores this scripture.

John 17:22 And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they may be one, even as we are one;

you are saying that 2 gods are one god, or 2 persons of god are one god. Thus you ignore john 17.22 which states that we the church are to be one the same way the father and the son are one. so if the father and the son are one g od, one being, then we the church are one person one being. which of course cannot be. if on the other hand the church is to be one in purpose, and unity of beliefs, then likewise that means the father and the son are one in purpose and beliefs. thus you ignorej ohn 17.22

Exactly. I agree with this.

Vanhin

 

[Breetai]

John 17:22 And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they may be one, even as we are one;

you are saying that 2 gods are one god, or 2 persons of god are one god. Thus you ignore john 17.22 which states that we the church are to be one the same way the father and the son are one. so if the father and the son are one g od, one being, then we the church are one person one being. which of course cannot be. if on the other hand the church is to be one in purpose, and unity of beliefs, then likewise that means the father and the son are one in purpose and beliefs. thus you ignorej ohn 17.22

My first thought is that you are lowering the status of the meaning of "we are one" in reference to God (or the Godhead, as Vanhin would say), while the trinitarian take on things would be to elevate "they may be one" in reference to the Church; meaning that I am literally the church, you are literally the church, we are literally the church, etc. The church isn't just one in purpose and unity of beliefs, but is more than that. We literally are the church, and the true Church isn't one defined by buildings, names, creeds or doctrines, but is one single entity under Christ. I am an individual, just as you are, but we are both the One Church.

I don't ignore verses like John 17:22, but I read it totally differently than you do.

You said that I may have said, "2 persons of god are one god".
Well, I also just said that "2 persons of church are one church."
There's a Baptist, a Methodist, a Lutheran, a Catholic, a Russian Orthodox and an Anglican person. They all proclaim Jesus as Lord. They aren't of six churches; they are of one church under Christ.


*perhaps I'm so disillusioned by my beliefs that I take this meaning out of this scripture? You might claim that and I won't be offended, but please don't claim that I ignore scripture. I'm sure Vanhin can understand my feelings here, as Mormons here are often accused of the same thing.

 

[2ducklow]

My first thought is that you are lowering the status of the meaning of "we are one" in reference to God (or the Godhead, as Vanhin would say), while the trinitarian take on things would be to elevate "they may be one" in reference to the Church; meaning that I am literally the church, you are literally the church, we are literally the church, etc. The church isn't just one in purpose and unity of beliefs, but is more than that. We literally are the church, and the true Church isn't one defined by buildings, names, creeds or doctrines, but is one single entity under Christ. I am an individual, just as you are, but we are both the One Church.

I don't ignore verses like John 17:22, but I read it totally differently than you do.

You said that I may have said, "2 persons of god are one god".
Well, I also just said that "2 persons of church are one church."
There's a Baptist, a Methodist, a Lutheran, a Catholic, a Russian Orthodox and an Anglican person. They all proclaim Jesus as Lord. They aren't of six churches; they are of one church under Christ.


*perhaps I'm so disillusioned by my beliefs that I take this meaning out of this scripture? You might claim that and I won't be offended, but please don't claim that I ignore scripture. I'm sure Vanhin can understand my feelings here, as Mormons here are often accused of the same thing.

Usually trinitarians ignore john 17.22. I've never run across your explanation before, you did pretty good, I had to think about it a little bit to discover it's flaw.

. Here is what john 17.22 results in with your interpretation.


++John 17:22 And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they may be one (church), even as we are one (being)

if it were the same as then it would read

;+ John 17:22 And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they may be one (organization i.e. the church), even as we are one( organization i.e. the god organization.);

your interpreatation results in God being an organization or it results in the church being one being. Either way it fails.

 

[Vanhin]

*perhaps I'm so disillusioned by my beliefs that I take this meaning out of this scripture? You might claim that and I won't be offended, but please don't claim that I ignore scripture. I'm sure Vanhin can understand my feelings here, as Mormons here are often accused of the same thing.

I do sympathize with you on that one for sure. Though, it always puzzles me because we (Mormons) tend to take a holistic approach to establishing our doctrine in scripture.

It is a little different for us, when discussing the nature of God, because we have modern witnesses who have seen and conversed with God. They have positively identified that God the Father and Jesus Christ are two separate personages. Joseph Smith being the first in this last dispensation to have conversed with God. My icon depicts this event. God the Father, as always, introduced the Christ, "...this is my Beloved Son, hear Him!".

Joseph isn't the only one. Later both Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon beheld the Son on the right hand of the Father, and testified:

And we beheld the glory of the Son, on the right hand of the Father, and received of his fulness; And saw the holy angels, and them who are sanctified before his throne, worshiping God, and the Lamb, who worship him forever and ever. And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives! (D&C 76:20-22)​

And many others have seen and testify of these things. We have prophets and apostles on the earth again, who are firsthand witnesses of the Father and the Son.

So, we start out with the right understanding of the nature of God to begin with, and see evidence of it throughout the scriptures.

Not only do we view the verses in John 17 as a lesson on how Christ is one with God (in purpose), but how we (those who believe on the teachings of the apostles) can become one with Christ as He is with the Father. We assert that these verses are about Exaltation, which is the potential of mankind. To become as God is.

It is accomplished by following the example of the Redeemer. We should allow our wills to be swallowed up in the will of the Father; that our thoughts be His thoughts, and our words His words, and our actions be His actions - what He would have us do. Christ led the way, and He provided the way.

Since we view ourselves as actual spirit children of God, an incomprehensible God, without body, parts, or passions is completely out of the question. Christ is truly his Father's Son, even in appearance and not just purpose. They are one in every way except substance. Thus it makes the verses in John 17 make sense - we can become one with them.

And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are oneJohn 17:21)​

Anyway, that's how we see it. But I add my witness to those included. I know of myself that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, are three separate personages united in perfect love and harmony for the salvation of mankind. God has made that know to me, and I can only bear witness of it. I also affirm that this knowledge is available to any and all who seek it in faith.

Regards,
Vanhin

 

[scriptures]

Is that not eisegesis on your part? How did you come to the conclusion that it means that, and just what do you mean by "perfect unity"? There are a number of ways to take that.

At 1 Corinthians 3:6, 8, Paul says:

1Co 3:6-8 ESV
(6) I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth.
(7) So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth.
(8) He who plants and he who waters are one, and each will receive his wages according to his labor.

Paul did not mean that he and Apollos were two persons in one; he meant that they were unified in purpose. The Greek word that Paul used here for “one” (hen) is neuter, literally “one (thing),” indicating oneness in cooperation. It is the same word that Jesus used at John 10:30 to describe his relationship with his Father. It is also the same word that Jesus used at John 17:21, 22. So when he used the word “one” (hen) in these cases, he was talking about unity of thought and purpose.

Right in the context of the verses after John 10:30, Jesus forcefully argued that his words were not a claim to be God. He asked the Jews who wrongly drew that conclusion and wanted to stone him:

Joh 10:36 ESV
(36) do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?

No, Jesus claimed that he was, not God the Son, but the Son of God