dzheremi says:
Do not attempt to force your own lack of understanding and resistance to the truth upon others. If you don't want to worship the Holy Trinity, the one God, that's fine (insofar as nobody can stop you from worshiping the false gods of Mormonism instead), but that doesn't make your butchering of Christian theology stand in place for actual Christian theology. This message board is not a Mormon meeting house.
I didn't think I was forcing my beliefs on anyone. Do you feel dominated.
So the hundreds of translations over the years ancient and modern, are OK, accepting JS. Well that is not surprising.
I am aware that it does not say that St. Stephen said that. I'm saying that that's what the verse referenced means.
OK, you are willing to accept that it does not say that, but you have to be hard-pressed to get around it. Stephen's statement is so clear and straight-forward. Let me just quote it again.
Acts 7:56
And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
I guarantee that if you were to ask a child that has not been indoctrinated, how many Persons Stephen saw, they would say 2.
I guarantee that if you were to as a child that has not been indoctrinated, to draw a picture of what Stephen saw, there would be 2 Persons standing next to each other. Would the child be blaspheming?
So you say, that is not what he said, but my interpretation of what he clearly said is the right interpretation. And to provide evidence for your correct invitation, you say, the early church believes the interpretation is the same as mine and so mine must be right. For a witness to the early church, you choose St. Cyril. Please, St Cyril was not what I would call an early church witness. He lived as you say in the 300's, more than 270 years after Jesus was resurrected. That may be the early church looking back from modern times, but for our discussion, this was certainly not the early church. By the mid 4th century he was completely immersed in the Holy Trinity concept of God, and even tries real hard to explain away the concept of "standing on the right hand of God". It is very difficult for trinitarians to get-around the concept of "Jesus standing on the right hand of God". So Cyril tries hard by saying things like,
" Let us not curiously pry into what is properly meant by the throne; for it is incomprehensible".
This is always the default position, it is incomprehensible. So Cyril says because it is so incomprehensible, let us not curiously pry into what is properly meant..... If this is your leader, he didn't know and could not answer his followers accept with the default position.
You also mention St. Gregory of..... He too, is too far distant from the real early church, being aroung 270, being 240 years from Christ.
Let me give you an earlier Saint. St Justin Martyr. He was around 130-170, much closer to Stephen. His interpretation of God is found again in his Dialogue with Trypho. Which we have read a little about.
In chapter LX (3rd paragraph), LXI, and LXII, he is trying to convince Trypho that the God who spoke with Moses in the burning bush, was not the The Maker of all things. IOW they were 2 separate Individuals.
In the 3rd paragraph of LX Trypho admits that there are 2 different Lords, by Justins earlier reference to Genesis 19:24. He also continues to say that because of this scripture and other proofs that Justin tells him, he admits the God that appeared to Moses in the burning bush was not the same as the Maker of all things, which to us is God the Father.
In LXI, Justin uses an example of fire to continue to prove that the God that talked with Moses in the bush was not the same as the Maker of all things.
He says, "just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled[another], but remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled". 2 separate Individuals.
In LXII Justine continues his proof that the God that spoke to Moses from the burning bush (Jesus) was not the same as the Maker of all things, by using a scripture that is dear to me, Genesis 1:26 when he says,
"Let Us make,'--I shall quote again the words narrated by Moses himself, from which we can indisputably learn that[God] conversed with some one who was numerically distinct from Himself, and also a rational Being".
Now you say that God was simply using the 'royal we'. But your St. Justin would argue with you.
St. Justin in LX and LXI and LXII is trying to prove to Trypho that Jesus is a separate entity than the Maker of all things, with is God the Father. He is successful. So St. Justin would agree that Stephen saw 2 separate and distinct individuals, the Son of Man (Jesus) standing on the right hand of God. Just as JS would declare.
I'm going to say this again, because I think you missed it. Sabellius would be against JS too. JS declares 2 Individuals, Sabellius would declare only 1.
So who is closer to JS? Sebellius or Stephen? The scriptures clearly answer this question, it would be Stephen, who saw 2 also.
I will say this again, because I think you missed it. Sabellius would agree with you that Stephen only saw 1 God. So who is closer to Sabellius? You or JS?
whereas Mormons, by virtue of their singular understanding of the faith, the Bible, and everything else must rely on Joseph Smith as their interpreter.
JS learned more in a few minutes about God and Jesus than all the doctors of religion since the early church put together, because he saw them and talked with Jesus personally. I know you don't believe that, but if it were true would you not say the same thing. Having a discussion with God and Jesus would be much better than writing a book about a Being that you have never seen or heard from. All you are writing is what you think is right, not what is necessarily right. Having a discussion with God and Jesus makes all the difference. It is right. I will believe that man before I would believe all the scholars since the beginning.
No, there are not two gods. That is not what it means. It means that they are one in essence (homoousios), equal and coessential. See the earlier patristic quotes, or the book referenced in that section of my reply.
You can homoousios and coessential all you want, but the text clearly says that Stephen saw Jesus standing next to God. How can you be standing next to someone and be homoousios? You can be of the same substance, and still be separate and distinct. Homoousios is a strange doctrine to me.
You have to wrestle with the text to make Homoousios work. I don't think wrestling with the text is necessary. St. Justin says the following:
"just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled[another], but remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled." So St. Justin does not believe they are homoousios, according to his fire example. And he is a lot closer to the early church than St Cyril, and St. Gregory. 50 years after St. Justin, things really started moving toward homoousios. Sebellius (215 ad) was the one that really got the 1 God theory going, and you know where that took everyone.
I am an Orthodox Christian, and will stick with what my fathers, the fathers of the early Church down through to today, have said concerning this matter. None of these agree with Mormonism.
Your fathers, from your example started around 270-386ad. Long after the early church. My example is around 150ad, and this St. Justin was much closer to JS than to St. Cyril.
Excuse me, but this is entirely beyond the pale. Your misunderstanding of Nicaea is one thing, but to attribute to me personally the error of Sabellius based on the same misunderstanding is a bit much, to put it nicely. I do not call anything you have written Sabellian without direct reference to the words you actually used, since that gives you room to explain yourself, which you are not giving me by simply equating Nicaea with Sabellianism, and hence my support of the Nicene definition with the same. I'm not an "I'm going to tell the mods on you!" type of person, but if you are serious about wanting to have a discussion, this will not do.
You have accused me of Sabellianism, which by definition requires the belief in 1 God. Since we believe in 2 Gods, per the scriptures and early church saints, it eliminates us from being Sabellian. Any belief system that believes in 1 God is closer to Sabellianism to we are. You, therefore are closer simply because you too believe in 1 God. They believed in 1 God with 3 modes or masks. You believe in 1 God with 3 distinct Persons. We believe in 2 separate distinct Individuals. You are closer, get used to it. I am not trying to hurt your feelings, this is not my intent at all, but by definition your belief is closer to Sabellianims. It is not Sabellianism, but it is closer than the Mormon belief.