PDA

View Full Version : Mormon Trinity



seven7up
04-26-2014, 02:36 PM
Does it bother you at all that, in the beginning, Smith pretty much taught the Trinity, and only subsequently came up with a more Modalistic version, then the "many gods" version?

Nope. It does not bother me at all.

For starters, let's not pretend that Christians have always represented the "Trinity" consistently. There is STILL debate amongst Christians concerning that doctrine.

Second, I would say that LDS views are often considered similar to a version of the Trinity, one that has been called "Social Trinitarianism".

While I have McConkie's quotes open from the thread, let me pull a few more from him, because he supposedly represents "hard line" Mormonism.

"Thus there are, in the Eternal Godhead, three persons–... These three are one — one God if you will – in purposes, in powers, and in perfections."

"Though each God in the Godhead is a personage, separate and distinct from each of the others, yet they are ‘one God’”

He also says,

"First, be it remembered that most scriptures that speak of God or of the Lord do not even bother to distinguish the Father from the Son, simply because it doesn’t make any difference which God is involved. They are one. The words or deeds of either of them would be the words and deeds of the other in the same circumstance."

But keep in mind that he says "would be... in the same circumstance". However, they are not technically in the same circumstance. Members of the Godhead have different "roles". For example, God the Father is the Father of my spirit, and Jesus Christ is the Redeemer of my sins.

Explanations of the Godhead get tricky, because we say that there are "three". On the other hand, we say that they are "one". Well, in what sense are they three, and in what sense are they "one"?

When discussing their unity, you end up sounding like a modalist. When discussing their diversity, you end up sounding like a tritheist.

I think that one main difference between LDS and mainstream Christians is when it comes to terms like "BEING" and "SUBSTANCE".

Mormons do not believe that God the Father and Jesus Christ are the same being nor do we believe that they are the same substance. We instead would say that Jesus Christ is the image of the same Being/Substance.

Another way to look at it is this:

I know that this is impossible, but let's pretend for a moment that God the Father (and/or the Holy Spirit) were suddenly to drop out of existence tomorow. In that scenario, Jesus Christ would STILL be fully God. (i.e. the FULNESS of Deity would still exist in Christ.)

I am not sure if most Trinitarians would hold that position.


-7up

Cow Poke
04-26-2014, 03:05 PM
Nope. It does not bother me at all.

Of course not. :smile:


For starters, let's not pretend that Christians have always represented the "Trinity" consistently. There is STILL debate amongst Christians concerning that doctrine.

When you say "that Christians have", are you allowing that Mormons are NOT Christians? :huh:

But, more to the point, I don't pretend that I'm a prophet who got the word DIRECTLY from God for the purpose of restoring the REAL Gospel.

Smith began with a view of the Trinity pretty consistent with the theology of his day. In just a very short time, that changed considerably. Did God get it wrong at first? Did Smith not get that instruction from God directly?

seven7up
04-26-2014, 04:46 PM
When you say "that Christians have", are you allowing that Mormons are NOT Christians?

I was including a time when "Mormons" did not even exist.


Did Smith not get that instruction from God directly?

Are you asking whether or not Joseph Smith received from God every theological concept all at once at the very beginning? Even the disciples who walked and talked personally with Christ often misinterpreted what Jesus had said. Much of those revelations from the Savior did not become clear to them until later. If you are going to make a case against Mormonism, first check and see if your complaint can be used against your own religion.



Did God get it wrong at first?

I know of many Jewish folks who would would ask Christians whether or not God "got it wrong" when revealing Himself to Old Testament prophets. The answer is no, but people often misinterpret things or make assumptions.


But, more to the point, I don't pretend that I'm a prophet who got the word DIRECTLY from God for the purpose of restoring the REAL Gospel. ... Smith began with a view of the Trinity pretty consistent with the theology of his day.

Even a prophet must obtain truth line upon line and precept upon precept. But before we go any further, can you give an example of what you are referring to specifically? Please quote the "Trinitarian" or "Modalist" teachings that you feel are associated with Joseph Smith.

-7up

Cow Poke
04-26-2014, 05:00 PM
I was including a time when "Mormons" did not even exist.

Ah, OK.

Why the blue? This is reminiscent of Jeff, and really makes it difficult to quote, sometimes. :wink:


Are you asking whether or not Joseph Smith received from God every theological concept all at once at the very beginning?

No, this is in reference to the doctrine of the Trinity - which is what you titled the thread.


Even the disciples who walked and talked personally with Christ often misinterpreted what Jesus had said.

They weren't charged with the responsibility of transcribing golden plates that had the "restoration" of the Gospel on them.


Much of those revelations from the Savior did not become clear to them until later. If you are going to make a case against Mormonism, first check and see if your complaint can be used against your own religion.

Agreed. But none of them claimed to be THE Prophet of God to set things straight, so that doesn't count.


I know of many Jewish folks who would would ask Christians whether or not God "got it wrong" when revealing Himself to Old Testament prophets. The answer is no, but people often misinterpret things or make assumptions.

Is our ENTIRE interchange going to be this way? How bout let's get back to the question.



[COLOR="#0000FF"]Even a prophet must obtain truth line upon line and precept upon precept.

But a TRUE prophet doesn't get a revelation of the "restoration" of the Gospel, which subsequently gets drastically changed into something totally different.


But before we go any further, can you give an example of what you are referring to specifically? Please quote the "Trinitarian" or "Modalist" teachings that you feel are associated with Joseph Smith.

-7up

AH, so AFTER all the rabbit chasing, we want to come back to the question at hand? :smile:

Can we PRETTY PLEASE abandon the color? I'm colorblind, so it just makes things difficult to read.

seven7up
04-26-2014, 07:49 PM
Explanations of the Godhead get tricky, because we say that there are "three". On the other hand, we say that they are "one". Well, in what sense are they three, and in what sense are they "one"? When discussing their unity, you end up sounding like a modalist. When discussing their diversity, you end up sounding like a tritheist.

This reminds me. Back when I had a lot of time to be clever, I was on a forum where a Trinitarian debated a Oneness theologian (essentially Modalist) in one thread, and that same Trinitarian debated a Latter-Day Saint on another thread. I went through both threads and then posted, in the Trinitarian's own words, a debate against himself. Very amusing.


Are you asking whether or not Joseph Smith received from God every theological concept all at once at the very beginning? Even the disciples who walked and talked personally with Christ often misinterpreted what Jesus had said. Much of those revelations from the Savior did not become clear to them until later. If you are going to make a case against Mormonism, first check and see if your complaint can be used against your own religion.


this is in reference to the doctrine of the Trinity - which is what you titled the thread.

Allow me to rephrase then:

Are you asking whether or not Joseph Smith received from God every concept (related to the nature of the Godhead) all at once at the very beginning?


They weren't charged with the responsibility of transcribing golden plates that had the "restoration" of the Gospel on them.

Were they (apostles and prophets), including Old Testament prophets, charged with relaying to the people the nature of God?


Is our ENTIRE interchange going to be this way?

I have found that mainstream Christians often attempt to hold the Mormon religion up to standards that their own religion cannot hold up to . So yes, I suspect that all of our discussions will probably be this way.


How bout let's get back to the question.

Yes ... the question. I asked:

Can you give an example of what you are referring to specifically? Please quote the "Trinitarian" or "Modalist" teachings that you feel are associated with Joseph Smith.

-7up

Cow Poke
04-26-2014, 08:16 PM
Allow me to rephrase then:

Are you asking whether or not Joseph Smith received from God every concept (related to the nature of the Godhead) all at once at the very beginning?

And AGAIN I answer, no --- I'm specifically referring to what I THINK should be a very important and fundamental doctrine -- Who JESUS is.


Were they (apostles and prophets), including Old Testament prophets, charged with relaying to the people the nature of God?

Sure! But NONE of them claimed to be THE prophet who was denouncing all religions as false, and establishing the ONE TRUE religion.


I have found that mainstream Christians often attempt to hold the Mormon religion up to standards that their own religion cannot hold up to . So yes, I suspect that all of our discussions will probably be this way.

So, Joseph Smith was no more special than anybody else, and should hold no more weight than anybody else who claims to hear from God?


Yes ... the question. I asked:

Can you give an example of what you are referring to specifically? Please quote the "Trinitarian" or "Modalist" teachings that you feel are associated with Joseph Smith.

-7up

Are you not aware that, initially, Smith taught the Trinity?

Cow Poke
04-26-2014, 08:17 PM
And, I have to add... it AMAZES me the extent to which Mormons have to go to downplay the significance of their "Prophet" in order to excuse his foibles. :brood:

Cow Poke
04-26-2014, 08:40 PM
I have found that mainstream Christians often attempt to hold the Mormon religion up to standards that their own religion cannot hold up to . So yes, I suspect that all of our discussions will probably be this way.

Here is what your religion says about my religion (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1?lang=eng), and all others:


19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

So, PERHAPS the REASON that "mainstream Christians often attempt to hold the Mormon religion up to standards that their own religion cannot hold up to" is because of what Joseph Smith declared. :shrug:

Was he wrong? Do you believe he spoke the truth in that citation?

seven7up
04-27-2014, 12:19 AM
And AGAIN I answer, no --- I'm specifically referring to what I THINK should be a very important and fundamental doctrine -- Who JESUS is.

Tell me who you think Jesus is, and tell me where you think Joseph got it wrong.


Sure! But NONE of them claimed to be THE prophet who was denouncing all religions as false, and establishing the ONE TRUE religion.

Please explain to me why you think that every concept related to the nature of the Godhead could have been understood by Joseph Smith all at once (and at the very beginning) when he was being used as an instrument to restore the Church of Jesus Christ. In other words, why do you think that the concept of "line upon line and precept upon precept" should not apply to Joseph Smith?


So, Joseph Smith was no more special than anybody else, and should hold no more weight than anybody else who claims to hear from God?

IF Joseph Smith was a prophet and apostle of God, then we should view him in a way similar to other prophets and apostles. That is simple enough, and fair enough.


Are you not aware that, initially, Smith taught the Trinity?

First of all, there were some issues in my first post on this thread that may need to be addressed before we discuss what both you and I even think the "Trinity" is.

Once we do that, perhaps we can continue, and you can provide ... let's say 3 citations.

You can choose the 3 quotes that you feel most strongly support your argument that Joseph taught "the Trinity". And we can go from there. Sound fair?

-7up

seven7up
04-27-2014, 01:10 AM
Here is what your religion says about my religion, and all others:


19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

To begin, I would say that teaching the "commandments of men" as "doctrines" is abominable before God no matter who is teaching them. I can even think of a couple examples where Mormon leaders taught "commandments of men", and certainly that was abominable in the sight of God. This often occurs when there is a doubt or a question, and then people insert their own assumptions, interpretations, or inventions. To that end, I quote one of the LDS articles of faith which admits that there is still a lot that we do not know,

"We believe that (God) will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."

Now, attempting to stay on topic, I believe that when it comes to the nature of the Godhead and the nature and relationship of the members within, I believe that people who developed many of the doctrines found within different denominations of Christianity have done so without revelation or authority from God.




So, PERHAPS the REASON that "mainstream Christians often attempt to hold the Mormon religion up to standards that their own religion cannot hold up to" is because of what Joseph Smith declared. Was he wrong? Do you believe he spoke the truth in that citation?

Yes. I do believe that the creeds were formed by corrupt professors. I do not believe that the Nicene Creed, for example, was created in a process which was approved of by God. I do not believe that it is authoritative or inspired. I do not believe that such creeds are revelation from God, and I believe that many ideas within those creeds and within "historic Christianity" teach things which are contrary to the truth, and would be considered offensive to God. Indeed, if Joseph Smith was right, then it wasn't Joseph saying this about these "commandments and creeds" of other churches, it was God saying this.

However, I would like to add that in many, many cases, the teachings of other Christian denominations is not all that different from Mormonism. I live in Texas, like you, where there are not many LDS. I listen to Christian radio, and depending on the pastor, 80-95% of the time I find myself agreeing with what is being taught. Yes there are time where I say to myself, "hey, that's not right. I wish that they knew what I know." Certainly, you feel the same about my religion. Hence, we are discussing our differences on this forum.


And, I have to add... it AMAZES me the extent to which Mormons have to go to downplay the significance of their "Prophet" in order to excuse his foibles.

Cease not to be amazed. I consider all of my own weaknesses and flaws and often wonder, "What would I have done if I had been raised in that culture and placed in those very difficult circumstances? Would I have done any better?" Sure, it is easy to look back and snipe and say, "oh, well I would of done this or that." But as they say, hindsight is 20/20.

Joseph Smith often tried to remind people that he was only an imperfect man. One familiar story is when a boat of converts was arriving from England. He put on the dirtiest most ragged clothes he could find and went out to welcome them and said, "What do you think of Joseph Smith?"

A man responded, "I know that he is a prophet of God."

Then Joseph said something to the effect of "What if I told you that I am Joseph Smith? ... If you are expecting anything more than a human being, you may as well get right back on that boat and go back to England."

-7up

Cow Poke
04-27-2014, 04:32 AM
Tell me who you think Jesus is, and tell me where you think Joseph got it wrong.

That's not important -- what's important is that Smith had a "clean sheet" upon which to write what God said about Jesus. A reasonable person would THINK that, given this incredibly important "ALL religions are corrupt and I'm here to set things straight" moment, that Smith would have gotten it right the first time.

After all, why did God pick Smith to condemn all religions and establish a new one, if Smith was "just another guy" who couldn't get things right the first time?


Please explain to me why you think that every concept related to the nature of the Godhead could have been understood by Joseph Smith all at once (and at the very beginning) when he was being used as an instrument to restore the Church of Jesus Christ.

Because God is not the author of confusion. Smith SUPPOSEDLY had things handed to him "on a golden platter" (so to speak) and professed to be speaking directly for God.


In other words, why do you think that the concept of "line upon line and precept upon precept" should not apply to Joseph Smith?

"line upon line" isn't "line, then, oooops, not that line but THIS line...." It's consistent. It builds. It's not an excuse for "getting it right" AFTER "getting it wrong" while claiming to speak for God.


IF Joseph Smith was a prophet and apostle of God, then we should view him in a way similar to other prophets and apostles. That is simple enough, and fair enough.

I suspected I would get "the party line", but I had thought you were a little more "straight shooter" than you appear to be. You can't have your cake and eat it too -- either Smith was who he said he was, or he was a fraud. I believe he was a fraud. Just like Christ was either who He said He was, or He was a fraud -- I believe He was the Christ.


First of all, there were some issues in my first post on this thread that may need to be addressed before we discuss what both you and I even think the "Trinity" is.

Once we do that, perhaps we can continue, and you can provide ... let's say 3 citations.

You can choose the 3 quotes that you feel most strongly support your argument that Joseph taught "the Trinity". And we can go from there. Sound fair?

-7up

Sure --- will have to be later this afternoon, as I'm headed to Church shortly.

Cow Poke
04-27-2014, 04:40 AM
However, I would like to add that in many, many cases, the teachings of other Christian denominations is not all that different from Mormonism.

Actually, I think the Mormon Church is trying everything it can to be "more Christian", and Mormon teachings are becoming more like Christian denominations.


I live in Texas, like you, where there are not many LDS. I listen to Christian radio, and depending on the pastor, 80-95% of the time I find myself agreeing with what is being taught. Yes there are time where I say to myself, "hey, that's not right. I wish that they knew what I know." Certainly, you feel the same about my religion. Hence, we are discussing our differences on this forum.

So, have these religions suddenly become "acceptable"? Smith claimed that God poo-poo'd them.


Cease not to be amazed. I consider all of my own weaknesses and flaws and often wonder, "What would I have done if I had been raised in that culture and placed in those very difficult circumstances? Would I have done any better?" Sure, it is easy to look back and snipe and say, "oh, well I would of done this or that." But as they say, hindsight is 20/20.

I imagine you're a pretty decent guy. I would think that you would recognize the incredibly important task you had before you, having been chosen by God to set things straight, and to establish the "REAL" Church of God. Therefore, I would (and I imagine you would, too) be VERY careful about my pronouncements, personal character, trustworthiness, sexual conduct, faithfulness to my wife, consistency of doing what I say, etc. I wouldn't shrug it off as, "aw shucks, boys will be boys, and people will just have to accept me as I am".


Joseph Smith often tried to remind people that he was only an imperfect man. One familiar story is when a boat of converts was arriving from England. He put on the dirtiest most ragged clothes he could find and went out to welcome them and said, "What do you think of Joseph Smith?"

A man responded, "I know that he is a prophet of God."

Then Joseph said something to the effect of "What if I told you that I am Joseph Smith? ... If you are expecting anything more than a human being, you may as well get right back on that boat and go back to England."

-7up

Yes, I'm aware he was given to theatrics.

The Remonstrant
04-27-2014, 07:40 AM
Is this the place where we argue over heretical teachings?

Bill the Cat
04-27-2014, 07:44 AM
Oh yay... he's back...

The Remonstrant
04-27-2014, 07:48 AM
Oh yay... he's back...

I do not even recognize his username from before.

Bill the Cat
04-27-2014, 07:49 AM
He was the one who kept on and on about free will and ex nihilo being incompatible.

The Remonstrant
04-27-2014, 08:32 AM
He was the one who kept on and on about free will and ex nihilo being incompatible.

Okay. I suppose I did not view his threads back in the day.

Bill the Cat
04-27-2014, 06:10 PM
For starters, let's not pretend that Christians have always represented the "Trinity" consistently. There is STILL debate amongst Christians concerning that doctrine.



No there isn't. There is debate between Christians and those who THINK they are Christians, but not between Christians.

Kind Debater
04-27-2014, 06:27 PM
Hey, 7up is back! I so don't have time to read and post right now, but just wanted to say hi.

--India

Cow Poke
04-28-2014, 06:47 AM
From a paper given on May 3 at the 1980 Mormon Association Meetings in Canandaigua, New York


1. The Construction of Mormon Doctrine 1830 -1835
Historians have long recognized the importance of the Nauvoo experience in the formulation of distinctive Latter-day Saint doctrines. What is not so apparent is that before about 1835 the LDS doctrines on God and man were quite close to those of contemporary Protestant denominations.

So, things started out pretty "contemporary" with other religions, even though Mormonism was to set all other religions aside, and Smith was to establish the "TRUE Religion". (bolding in the articles is mine, of course)

Church publications from this period are important sources of doctrine and doctrinal commentary, given the lack of diaries. After the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830, the Church supported The Evening and the Morning Star in Independence (June 1832 - July 1833) and Kirtland (December 1833 - September 1834). In October 1834, the Latter Day Saints Messenger and Advocate (Kirtland, October 1834 - September 1837) replaced the Star. Both monthlies published expositions on doctrine, letters from Church members, revelations, minutes of conferences, and other items of interest. William W. Phelps published a collection of Joseph Smith's revelations in the 1833 Book of Commandments, but destruction of the press and most copies left the Star and Messenger virtually the only sources of these revelations until 1835. In that year, the Doctrine and Covenants, which included the Lectures on Faith and presented both revelation and doctrinal exposition, was published.'

The doctrines of God and man revealed in these sources were not greatly different from those of some of the religious denominations of the time. Marvin Hill has argued that the Mormon doctrine of man in New York contained elements of both Calvinism and Arminianism, though tending toward the latter. The following evidence shows that it was much closer to the moderate Arminian position, particularly in rejecting the Calvinist emphasis on absolute and unconditional predestination, limited atonement, total depravity, and absolute perseverence of the elect. It will further demonstrate that the doctrine of God preached and believed before 1835 was essentially trinitarian, with God the Father seen as an absolute personage of Spirit, Jesus Christ as a personage of tabernacle, and the Holy Ghost as an impersonal spiritual member of the Godhead.

We can start there.

Cow Poke
04-28-2014, 06:58 AM
Before 1835, Mormon publications at the time seemed to assume that God or Christ was the creator, but didn't differentiate much at all between Christ and God. Who was in charge of these publications at that time?

Smith's 1832 account of the First Vision spoke only of one personage. In the 1838 version, of course, there's the differentiation.

The Book of Mormon declared that Mary "is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh," which as James Allen and Richard Howard have pointed out was changed in 1837 to "mother of the Son of God." Abinidi's sermon in the Book of Mormon explored the relationship between God and Christ: "God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth." (Mosiah 15:1-4)

So WHY would God have Smith denounce ALL OTHER RELIGIONS, then borrow their Trinity, only to poo-poo it later? Again, God is not the author of confusion.

ke7ejx
04-28-2014, 09:05 AM
Before 1835, Mormon publications at the time seemed to assume that God or Christ was the creator, but didn't differentiate much at all between Christ and God. Who was in charge of these publications at that time?

Smith's 1832 account of the First Vision spoke only of one personage. In the 1838 version, of course, there's the differentiation.

The Book of Mormon declared that Mary "is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh," which as James Allen and Richard Howard have pointed out was changed in 1837 to "mother of the Son of God." Abinidi's sermon in the Book of Mormon explored the relationship between God and Christ: "God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth." (Mosiah 15:1-4)

So WHY would God have Smith denounce ALL OTHER RELIGIONS, then borrow their Trinity, only to poo-poo it later? Again, God is not the author of confusion.

The God of Mormonism is. :whistle:

Cow Poke
04-28-2014, 09:17 AM
The God of Mormonism is. :whistle:

Yes, because the god of Mormonism had a perfect opportunity, creating a BRAND NEW religion, to get things right from the start. Instead, the god of Mormonism apparently chose a man who couldn't seem to keep his own story straight about a number of very critical events and issues pertaining to the foundation of this "new religion".

seven7up
04-28-2014, 11:28 PM
7UP: Are you asking whether or not Joseph Smith received from God every concept (related to the nature of the Godhead) all at once at the very beginning?


And AGAIN I answer, no --- I'm specifically referring to what I THINK should be a very important and fundamental doctrine -- Who JESUS is.

It is important. However, will you admit that before the mortal ministry of Jesus Christ, the nature of the Godhead was not fully revealed to most people in Old Testament times? Even now looking back, most of the time in the Hebrew scriptures it appears that Jesus was Jehovah of the Old Testament, yet other times it appears that he is the "angel of the Lord". He is speaking on the Father's behalf as a perfect representative, which makes things difficult to discern in terms of who is speaking or acting. It did become a little more clear with the New Testament, but still there was a lot of disputes on the nature of the Godhead which required council's, votes, creeds, etc. Disputes still continue to this very day.

7UP: Tell me who you think Jesus is, and tell me where you think Joseph got it wrong.


That's not important.

On one hand you say that it is important, yet on the other hand you say that it is not.


-- what's important is that Smith had a "clean sheet" upon which to write what God said about Jesus. A reasonable person would THINK that, given this incredibly important "ALL religions are corrupt and I'm here to set things straight" moment, that Smith would have gotten it right the first time.

What was the clean sheet? I am not sure if there is such a thing. I don't see it in this scenario.


After all, why did God pick Smith to condemn all religions and establish a new one, if Smith was "just another guy" who couldn't get things right the first time?

Haven't we established that God works through imperfect instruments.


Because God is not the author of confusion.

If you ask me, after the death of the Apostles, the Christian church has been filled with confusion.


Smith SUPPOSEDLY had things handed to him "on a golden platter" (so to speak) and professed to be speaking directly for God.

If it were to be handed to him "on a golden platter", then God could have handed Joseph Smith printed copies of the Book of Mormon in English, along with the Doctrine and Covenants etc. It wasn't that easy. There was a lot of work involved in establishing the Restored Church.


I suspected I would get "the party line", but I had thought you were a little more "straight shooter" than you appear to be.

Don't judge. We haven't even started yet.

7UP: I live in Texas, like you, where there are not many LDS. I listen to Christian radio, and depending on the pastor, 80-95% of the time I find myself agreeing with what is being taught.


I think the Mormon Church is trying everything it can to be "more Christian", and Mormon teachings are becoming more like Christian denominations. ... So, have these religions suddenly become "acceptable"?

There were doctrines where Mormonism and mainstream Christianity never clashed. I have seen Christianity change though. I hear Christians speak of an "age of accountability" such that children who die are not condemned to hell for not accepting Jesus or not being baptized. I see Christians practice full immersion baptism rather than just sprinkling. I have seen Christians open up to the possibility that those who never even heard the gospel may not necessarily condemned to hell for eternity. I have seen doctrinal developments of the relationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit change into ideas like "Social Trinitarianism", which is closer to the LDS view.

A while back, I was listening to a Christian radio show, where the pastor/host told a story about how he always taught about salvation throughout the decades of his ministry. The emphasis of his sermons were were always about grace and forgiveness. One day a caller dialed up and asked simply , "What about repentance?" This question shook him. The pastor said that one of his biggest regrets was preaching an incomplete gospel, whereby he did not sufficiently preach about turning away from sin.

This is a theme that I have seen stressed more and more frequently in some Christian churches, which is an improvement from a lot of the 'Free Grace Theology' points of view. In other words, in certain groups of Christianity, I see more criticism of those advocating an acquiescence in sin by allowing greatly sinful behavior to exist together with the same assurance of salvation as someone who does not currently allow greatly sinful behavior. Some of these teachings are headed more in the LDS direction.


He was the one who kept on and on about free will and ex nihilo being incompatible.

And then you all turned me over to one of your philosophy majors, with whom I had a long debate. And in the end he decided that Ex Nihilo wasn't so necessary in Christian theology after all.

7UP: I consider all of my own weaknesses and flaws and often wonder, "What would I have done if I had been raised in that culture and placed in those very difficult circumstances? Would I have done any better?" Sure, it is easy to look back and snipe and say, "oh, well I would of done this or that." But as they say, hindsight is 20/20.



I imagine you're a pretty decent guy. I would think that you would recognize the incredibly important task you had before you, having been chosen by God to set things straight, and to establish the "REAL" Church of God.

I think the weight was quite heavy on Joseph. Let's not pretend that he had it easy.


Therefore, I would (and I imagine you would, too) be VERY careful about my pronouncements, personal character, trustworthiness, sexual conduct, faithfulness to my wife, consistency of doing what I say, etc. I wouldn't shrug it off as, "aw shucks, boys will be boys, and people will just have to accept me as I am".

Obviously he wasn't perfect, but I don't think that Joseph made as many errors as people accuse him of. I think that God placed him in very, very difficult circumstances. I know you don't believe that God did this, but just imagine for a moment. Imagine that God personally visits you tonight and asks you to start practicing polygamy as a direct command. How would you handle it? How would you go about it? Who would you ask? How would you tell your wife?


-7up

seven7up
04-29-2014, 12:25 AM
7UP: For starters, let's not pretend that Christians have always represented the "Trinity" consistently. There is STILL debate amongst Christians concerning that doctrine.


No there isn't. There is debate between Christians and those who THINK they are Christians, but not between Christians.


Case in point.

However, the way Bill handles those theological debates is to brand those he disagrees with as heretics and non-Christians. Problem solved ... right Bill?



Jesus stands "at the right hand of the Father".* This is a position which represents the second person in authority.* This contradicts the idea of the members of the "Trinity" being "coequal".* We read in verse 3 that Jesus is not the same substance as the Father, but instead is a COPY of the Father or the "image/stamped imprint/facsimile/ of the Father's person".* There is a difference because the phrase "same substance" implies that they are literally the same being. That is not what the scriptures said.*

Bill brought up the earlier discussion of Ex Nihilo creation, whereby I argued that there is no true free will in Ex Nihilo creation theology. I also addressed how the philosophical problems of evil and suffering in that scenario are insurmountable. I lay out some of the details of those issues here in a video series: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLbpyH--hzXKWn2jm8BClH9MxxLwwWnAea

However, I did not yet create the video which discussed how Ex Nihilo Creation theology affected the development of Trinitarian dogma.

The Arian controversy following the era of Apostolic Christianity was mishandled.* The reason that the debate was fruitless is because almost all of the Christians had adopted "Ex Nihilo" creation theology by then, and creation "from nothing" was a foundation from which correct doctrines could not develop. We can all agree that if Jesus was "created out of nothing", then he could not be Deity.* In a sense, the Arians / Semi-Arians and subordinationalists had very good points, but the concept of creatio ex nihilo made it impossible to defend their case coherently.

Justin Martyr's analogy of Deity being a substance like fire is interesting. Let's say you take a fire and light another fire. You have the Father and the Son. Each has the same characteristics of Deity and therefore each person, in and of themselves, are fully Deity. This would even be true in the impossible/theoretical scenario of one of the flames going out. The other flame would STILL be fully Deity.

-7up

seven7up
04-29-2014, 01:17 AM
Before 1835, Mormon publications at the time seemed to assume that God or Christ was the creator, but didn't differentiate much at all between Christ and God.

God the Father IS God/Deity. Jesus Christ IS God/Deity. It is quite difficult to "differentiate" between them because they act as "one". Let's get into it shall we?

Hebrews 1 is a good place to start in this discussion, and it does not teach what most of the Christian world would like it to teach (it does not teach the Trinity as most Christians understand it.)* The chapter starts in the present and goes back in time describing Jesus and His relationship with God the Father prior to his incarnation. **The chronology of Christ's appointment to authority, then being born into mortality and then resurrection and return to the right hand of the Father is given.*

The first scene I will bring up chronologically (verse 9), shows God the Father seeing the superior qualities of Jesus amongst the other "sons of God" or among the "morning stars"* -** Remember that Christ is called the "Bright Morning Star", which is an angelic title (see Rev 22:16 and 2Pet.1:19 (see also Job 38:7 for another reference to the many "sons of God"). Nevertheless, we see that Jesus has superior qualities when compared to the other sons of god.

Heb 1
9*You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.

You see here that God (the God of Jesus) chose and anointed Jesus from among his "companions" (sometimes translated "fellows") ... his fellow angels mentioned in the context of the passage (verses 4-9).* Why was he chosen above the others? According to the verse we read, it was because Jesus loved righteousness and hated lawlessness.*
We see in Hebrews chapter 1 that God the Father elevated this perfect angel to the status of "God", and to have the status of godhood forever.

Heb 1
8*But to the Son, He (God the Father) says:
Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.

As Jesus is elevated to the status of Deity, the gives the scepter/throne of the Father's kingdom to the Son, and it will be the Son's Kingdom forever.

Heb 1
7*And of the angels He says:
Who makes His angels spirits
And His ministers a flame of fire.

The other angels are subject to Jesus.* Elsewhere in the New Testament we see that Jesus was chosen by God the Father to organize the hosts of heaven, organizing the powers, thrones, principalities and so forth (see 1 Col 1:16). Jesus was placed at the head of the hosts of heaven and became God's right hand; His Word, who fulfills the Father's will.* Jesus was also to be the Creator of the physical Universe as we know it (Heaven and Earth) under the direction of the Father, as mentioned in verse 2 and 10 of this chapter.*

Let's look at verse 4, because it is important in this conversation:

Heb 1
4*having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

How did Jesus obtain the name and title of God?* He "obtained" it by INHERITANCE, by being elevated from among the other sons of God to a higher position!* Please note that Hebrews chapter 1 teaches that Jesus was "chosen/anointed" and that Jesus "obtained" the "more excellent name".* However, it is clearly well deserved.* As the only perfect spirit, Christ had no flaws and therefore could unite His will perfectly with God's, thus he "became better than the angels" becoming "one" with God and thus deserving the name of God.* Now read verses 2 and 3:

Heb 1
2 [God the Father] has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; 3*who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.

Thus Jesus Christ, an exalted angel/son, who was "appointed" to be "heir of all things" and to be known as Jehovah in the Old Testament, and who now sits again on the right hand of the "Most High God".*

That is how subordinationism was taught in the New Testament and understood within the Apostles' New Testament Church.* This was long before the changes in doctrine which began to occur in the mid to second century A.D. in order to fit Greek philosophical monotheism. The doctrinal changes solidified in Nicea and was found in creeds which describe the Father and Son to be "coequal" and "same substance" and and other terms/phrases not found in scripture. How does one "inherit" that which was already his? In the Trinity, the same Being is appointing itself, sending itself, and inheriting from itself.

That, in my opinion, is wrong. The very same titles that belong to God the Father are given to the son. Jesus was already spiritually perfect, and therefore Deity/God BEFORE entering mortality and had "inherited a more excellent name" BEFORE entering mortality. The names and titles which are applicable to our Heavenly Father became applicable to the Son. Jesus Christ was the God of Israel, who interacted with the people, under the will and direction of the Father.

So, when the Book of Mormon said, Mary "is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh," it is accurate. We would especially expect this wording from the perspective of someone like Mosiah, who was seeing the God of the Old Testament, Jehovah, as becoming flesh. The change was made as clarification by Joseph Smith for the benefit of us readers who, unlike Mosiah, are looking at it from a New Testament perspective and want to know which member of the Godhead is being referred to. Yet even from our perspective, it is correct to say that Mary is the mother of God. It is correct to say that "God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people." Only those who deny the Deity of Christ would be restricted from such wording.

-7up

seven7up
04-29-2014, 02:04 AM
Yes, because the god of Mormonism had a perfect opportunity, creating a BRAND NEW religion, to get things right from the start. Instead, the god of Mormonism apparently chose a man who couldn't seem to keep his own story straight about a number of very critical events and issues pertaining to the foundation of this "new religion".


Mormonism is not claimed to be a "brand new religion" any more than Christianity was a "brand new religion". The very same kind of criticism that you toss at the LDS faith are the same criticisms that Judaism tosses at Christianity.

Now, back to the Book of Mormon and the view presented on the nature of Deity.

In Ether 3:16, the premortal Jesus presents himself to the Brother of Jared. In that text, the Old Testament God indicated that His spirit is anthropomorphic (having human form).

“Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit;
and man have I created after the body of my spirit;
and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I
appear unto my people in the flesh.”

This presents the uniquely LDS teaching that we are actually created in the "image and likeness" of God. (So really, it is more accurate to say that we humans are "theomorphic".)

Modalists and Trinitarians hold to a definition of God who is an eternal, omnipresent, indivisible, immaterial spirit essence, “without body, parts, or passions.” (A view which was derived from Greek philosophical thought.) This very concept is why modalism came into existence in the first place. If “God” is an eternally unchanging and indivisible essence, then you can't have three persons who are called “God”.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Book of Mormon DOES refer to Jesus Christ as the “Father”. However, it also clarifies in what sense Jesus is understood as "Father". There are 3 different ways that Christ can be called Father:

1)Jesus Christ is “the Father of Heaven and of Earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning.”

This is still consistent with the Bible and current LDS doctrine, which teaches that all was created "by and through Jesus Christ".

2) Second, Jesus is called “Father” in the sense that those who are saved by Him become His children when we are "born again" in Christ.

There are several examples of this in the Book of Mormon, IF you bother to read the context.

3) The last one is the one that we often find in the Bible, and people often mistake it for modalism. This is the idea of “Divine Investiture of Authority.” As I explained in my previous post, Jesus was given the Father's name.

Jesus Christ is the chief representative of the Father’s will. The Father placed His name upon the Son; and Jesus Christ spoke and ministered in and through the Father’s name. In terms of power and authority and will, His words and acts were and are those of the Father. Look at the Biblical example where God placed His name upon or in the Angel who was assigned to Israel during the exodus. Concerning that Angel, God said:

‘Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not;
for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name
is in him.’ (Exodus 23:21)”

So, you cannot say that the Book of Mormon teaches "Trinitarianism" or "Modalism". And the LDS faith is not a "brand new religion". It is a continuation of the previous religion, only with more light, more knowledge and revelation.

-7up

Cow Poke
04-29-2014, 04:18 AM
Mormonism is not claimed to be a "brand new religion" any more than Christianity was a "brand new religion". The very same kind of criticism that you toss at the LDS faith are the same criticisms that Judaism tosses at Christianity.

Interesting you should try to make that comparison, 7up.

When God wanted us to know about Salvation through Christ, He sent us a sinless Savior prophesied throughout the Old Testament, and one in whom no guile was found, and sinless.

When Smith wanted us to believe that God sent HIMSELF to "restore" what Christ had done, God supposedly used a glass looking money digging woman chasing self promoting opportunist who couldn't get his story straight right from the beginning.

Yeah, I see the similarity!


:no:

Cow Poke
04-29-2014, 04:23 AM
So, you cannot say that the Book of Mormon teaches "Trinitarianism" or "Modalism".

I'm not saying that at all. :shrug: I'm saying it DID teach the Trinity, then Modalism, THEN the "man can become God" nonsense.


And the LDS faith is not a "brand new religion". It is a continuation of the previous religion, only with more light, more knowledge and revelation.

No, it's not. Smith is a fraud, and Mormonism is his craft. And your attempts to prove the legitimacy of this new religion by using the Book of Mormon is like foolishness. I believe Smith was a pathological liar and a fraud. Why would I believe "but, here, read this book he wrote proving he's legit".?

:no:

Cow Poke
04-29-2014, 04:44 AM
Obviously he wasn't perfect,

Agreed. It seems, when God brought us Salvation through Christ, He sent the perfect one. SUPPOSEDLY, when He wanted to "restore" what Christ built, He went to the other end of the spectrum.

Nah, didn't happen.


but I don't think that Joseph made as many errors as people accuse him of.

Naturally -- you believe he was a for really prophet. :shrug:


I think that God placed him in very, very difficult circumstances.

And you think Jesus was NOT? :glare: I think Smith REPEATEDLY placed himself in difficult situations, like shacking up with the wives of his supporters/followers, having a bar in the hotel he owned while preaching against alcohol, defrauding his flock out of their money through the Kirtland Bank scandal...


I know you don't believe that God did this, but just imagine for a moment.

Ain't gonna happen.


Imagine that God personally visits you tonight and asks you to start practicing polygamy as a direct command. How would you handle it? How would you go about it? Who would you ask? How would you tell your wife?

Interesting you should bring up the wife, 7up. That's the point at which I first began confidently declaring Smith a fraud -- when I discovered that he came up with this cowardly "prophesy" that his faithful and obedient wife would be DESTROYED if she didn't put up with his serial adultery.


And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law" (DC 132:54.)

How do you buy this nonsense, 7up? How do you make yourself believe that God would have Smith threaten his faithful wife with DESTRUCTION for no other reason that she got tired of his sexual exploits outside of their marriage?

Cow Poke
04-29-2014, 05:15 AM
So, when the Book of Mormon said, Mary "is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh," it is accurate. We would especially expect this wording from the perspective of someone like Mosiah, who was seeing the God of the Old Testament, Jehovah, as becoming flesh. The change was made as clarification by Joseph Smith for the benefit of us readers who, unlike Mosiah, are looking at it from a New Testament perspective and want to know which member of the Godhead is being referred to.

This is what you don't get -- Joseph claims to have gotten this from the "golden plates". WHY would "the most perfect book on earth" need "clarified" on such a crucial point?

Let's look at the claim of the "translation" process... (bolding mine)


The details of this miraculous method of translation are still not fully known. Yet we do have a few precious insights. David Whitmer wrote:

“Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)

That HARDLY leaves room for the need for later "revisions". UNLESS, of course, this isn't actually the way it happened! (And we find multiple OTHER accounts of how it supposedly happened, conflicting with this, that DO allow for the need for later correction. I can't make this stuff up!)

Sparko
04-29-2014, 06:24 AM
How could Smith get anything wrong, 7up? He supposedly talked and saw God directly. He had the golden plates too. Exactly where would the confusion, or inconsistencies come from? Why did Smith quote God directly about something, then turn around and change his mind and give the opposite "revelation" later? If God is really God, he would not have to change his story or mind. Why would he tell Smith that the Trinity was true, then tell him it wasn't? Why would God tell Smith that polygamy was an everlasting covenant and then make it a sin later?

Smith was all over the place with his nonsense. Wake up dude! Read your own religion's literature with a bit of skepticism and ask some hard questions. Don't just look for ways to excuse the obvious clues that Smith was a conman who decided he could live the high life by inventing a religion and getting a bunch of hicks to follow him around.

Cow Poke
04-29-2014, 06:51 AM
Don't just look for ways to excuse the obvious clues that Smith was a conman who decided he could live the high life by inventing a religion and getting a bunch of hicks to follow him around.

Speaking of "living the high life", I started a new thread on the Kirtland Banking Mess (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?1832-The-Kirtland-Bank-mess&p=49468&viewfull=1#post49468).

Sparko
04-29-2014, 07:03 AM
Speaking of "living the high life", I started a new thread on the Kirtland Banking Mess (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?1832-The-Kirtland-Bank-mess&p=49468&viewfull=1#post49468).

Then there was the book of Abraham scam, the missing pages of the BoM, direct plagiarism of the KJV Bible, the witnesses to Smith were eventually excommunicated by Smith and retracted their statements (most of them anyway), the Mormon massacre they tried to blame on Indians, and destroying the Navoo Expositor printing press. I am sure I am missing a few more.

But for "the restored" church, it sure looks pretty shady to me.

Cow Poke
04-29-2014, 07:06 AM
Then there was the book of Abraham scam, the missing pages of the BoM, direct plagiarism of the KJV Bible, the witnesses to Smith were eventually excommunicated by Smith and retracted their statements (most of them anyway), the Mormon massacre they tried to blame on Indians, and destroying the Navoo Expositor printing press. I am sure I am missing a few more.

But for "the restored" church, it sure looks pretty shady to me.

What did NRAJeff used to call himself in his profile? The "enforcement" group of thugs Smith used to keep his followers in line, and fight off his angry former followers?


ETA: AH, yes, the DANITES -- and this is FairMormon's attempt to deal with the topic:


Did Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon support the formation of a vigilante band called the “Danites?”
Is it true that the Danites were pledged to “plunder, lie, and even kill if deemed necessary?"


That's the "question" being dealt with. Here's the "answer":


Regardless of their original motives, the Danites ultimately were led astray by their leader, Sampson Avard. Avard attempted to blame Joseph Smith in order to save himself. Joseph, however, clearly repudiated both the organization and Avard.


Here's the ... well, heck, NEW THREAD!!!!

Sparko
04-29-2014, 07:08 AM
What did NRAJeff used to call himself in his profile? The "enforcement" group of thugs Smith used to keep his followers in line, and fight off his angry former followers?

The Danites?

Cow Poke
04-29-2014, 07:40 AM
So, you cannot say that the Book of Mormon teaches "Trinitarianism" or "Modalism".

Again, I wasn't saying that at all. You seem to be conveniently missing the whole point. In the EARLY STAGES, Mormonism taught the Trinity.

The Lectures on Faith differentiated between the Father and Son somewhat more explicitly, but even they did not define a materialistic, tritheistic Godhead. In announcing the publication of the Doctrine and Covenants which included the Lectures on Faith, the Messenger and Advocate commented editorially that it trusted the volume would give "the churches abroad . . . a perfect under¬standing of the doctrine believed by this society." The Lectures declared that "there are two personages who constitute the great matchless, governing and supreme power over all things—by whom all things were created and made." They are "the Father being a personage of spirit," and "the Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man., or, rather, man was formed after his likeness, and in his image." The "Articles and Covenants" called the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost "one God" rather than the Godhead, a term which Mormons generally use today to separate themselves from trinitarians.9

Note that God the Father was a SPIRIT, not a man with flesh and bones.

Sparko
04-29-2014, 07:51 AM
Again, I wasn't saying that at all. You seem to be conveniently missing the whole point. In the EARLY STAGES, Mormonism taught the Trinity.

The Lectures on Faith differentiated between the Father and Son somewhat more explicitly, but even they did not define a materialistic, tritheistic Godhead. In announcing the publication of the Doctrine and Covenants which included the Lectures on Faith, the Messenger and Advocate commented editorially that it trusted the volume would give "the churches abroad . . . a perfect under¬standing of the doctrine believed by this society." The Lectures declared that "there are two personages who constitute the great matchless, governing and supreme power over all things—by whom all things were created and made." They are "the Father being a personage of spirit," and "the Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man., or, rather, man was formed after his likeness, and in his image." The "Articles and Covenants" called the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost "one God" rather than the Godhead, a term which Mormons generally use today to separate themselves from trinitarians.9

Note that God the Father was a SPIRIT, not a man with flesh and bones.

the statement of the three witnesses at the beginning of the BoM ends with "And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen."

Bill the Cat
04-29-2014, 08:03 AM
7UP: For starters, let's not pretend that Christians have always represented the "Trinity" consistently. There is STILL debate amongst Christians concerning that doctrine.




Case in point.

However, the way Bill handles those theological debates is to brand those he disagrees with as heretics and non-Christians. Problem solved ... right Bill?


It's the way the Church has handled people who invent novel ideas that contradict what the Apostles taught their students all along, so yes. Problem solved.



Jesus stands "at the right hand of the Father".* This is a position which represents the second person in authority.* This contradicts the idea of the members of the "Trinity" being "coequal".

That's just a plain crappy bastardization of the Trinity doctrine. No one says the Father and Son are equal in authority. What we claim is they are co-equal in their essence. Functional subordination vs. ontological equality.


* We read in verse 3 that Jesus is not the same substance as the Father, but instead is a COPY of the Father or the "image/stamped imprint/facsimile/ of the Father's person".* There is a difference because the phrase "same substance" implies that they are literally the same being. That is not what the scriptures said.*

Rubbish. He is the exact representation of the Father's nature (or those things that make God God), meaning both attributes like being perfect, holy, and just, and their nature, being the One God.



Bill brought up the earlier discussion of Ex Nihilo creation, whereby I argued that there is no true free will in Ex Nihilo creation theology. I also addressed how the philosophical problems of evil and suffering in that scenario are insurmountable.

You argued that they were, but you failed miserably, when your argument boiled down to simply whining that "God COULD HAVE done better" in ex nihilo. And I showed you how that whine can be applicable to every theory of God, including yours.


I lay out some of the details of those issues here in a video series: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLbpyH--hzXKWn2jm8BClH9MxxLwwWnAea

However, I did not yet create the video which discussed how Ex Nihilo Creation theology affected the development of Trinitarian dogma.

The Arian controversy following the era of Apostolic Christianity was mishandled.* The reason that the debate was fruitless is because almost all of the Christians had adopted "Ex Nihilo" creation theology by then, and creation "from nothing" was a foundation from which correct doctrines could not develop. We can all agree that if Jesus was "created out of nothing", then he could not be Deity.* In a sense, the Arians / Semi-Arians and subordinationalists had very good points, but the concept of creatio ex nihilo made it impossible to defend their case coherently.

Simply untrue. Deity can not be created nor obtained as an inherent nature. It can be reflected by other beings as a function, but not innately possessed by anyone except God Himself. Any form of polytheism falls apart when a created being is classified as deity in and of itself.


Justin Martyr's analogy of Deity being a substance like fire is interesting. Let's say you take a fire and light another fire. You have the Father and the Son. Each has the same characteristics of Deity and therefore each person, in and of themselves, are fully Deity. This would even be true in the impossible/theoretical scenario of one of the flames going out. The other flame would STILL be fully Deity.

But the problem exists when we understand that there is only one deity that exists as fire in and of itself. Lighting another fire implies that the first was also lit by something else. The fire had to start somewhere, and those things who were "lit" are mere immitations of that which is fire in and of itself, and that never needed something else to light it. The Son was never "lit", which implies that there was a time when He was "unlit". He has always been on fire as the Father has, as the Spirit has, yet there is only one "eternal flame" which is God.

Bill the Cat
04-29-2014, 09:07 AM
God the Father IS God/Deity. Jesus Christ IS God/Deity. It is quite difficult to "differentiate" between them because they act as "one".

Because there is only one God.


Let's get into it shall we?

Hebrews 1 is a good place to start in this discussion, and it does not teach what most of the Christian world would like it to teach (it does not teach the Trinity as most Christians understand it.)* The chapter starts in the present and goes back in time describing Jesus and His relationship with God the Father prior to his incarnation. **The chronology of Christ's appointment to authority, then being born into mortality and then resurrection and return to the right hand of the Father is given.*

The first scene I will bring up chronologically (verse 9), shows God the Father seeing the superior qualities of Jesus amongst the other "sons of God" or among the "morning stars"* -** Remember that Christ is called the "Bright Morning Star", which is an angelic title (see Rev 22:16 and 2Pet.1:19 (see also Job 38:7 for another reference to the many "sons of God"). Nevertheless, we see that Jesus has superior qualities when compared to the other sons of god.

You start out completely misunderstanding Hebrews. The entire first chapter lays out the claim that Jesus is the King of the Jews. The writer does that by quoting Jewish rituals followed when naming the new King. These were coronation hymns.

A side point. If your claim that the Father is the literal father of all angels, then vs. 5 is nonsense because to ALL of the angels He is a Father and they are His sons. So, instead of Jesus' unique place as the ONLY begotten, we would have these answers:

Heb 1:5 For to which of the angels did He ever say,
“You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You”?

Answer: ALL of them

And again,
I will be a Father to Him
And He shall be a Son to Me”?

Answer: ALL of them


Heb 1
9*You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.


Again, a kingly praise from Psalm 45:

45 My heart overflows with a pleasing theme;
I address my verses to the king;

Once again making a claim to the kingship of Israel for Jesus.



You see here that God (the God of Jesus) chose and anointed Jesus from among his "companions" (sometimes translated "fellows")

this is a kingly claim that He alone among humanity was worthy. THAT is the "fellows" or "companions" that are being referred to here, just as in Psalm 45.


... his fellow angels mentioned in the context of the passage (verses 4-9).*

No. Were that the case, it would read: "having become as much better than the OTHER angels". Again, the point is that Jesus is both High Priest and King, and more worthy of the devotion of the Jews than mere angels who were not their Kings.


Why was he chosen above the others? According to the verse we read, it was because Jesus loved righteousness and hated lawlessness.*
We see in Hebrews chapter 1 that God the Father elevated this perfect angel to the status of "God", and to have the status of godhood forever.

Wrong. We see that He was not an angel (as He was made lower than angels while He sojourned on earth) , was the perfect human (above all other humans), was worthy to become the Priest/King like His father David (but above David and the other kings due to His being immortal), and was/is God already (never said "you have now become God"). No. Hebrews 1 makes a clear distinction that the Son is NOT, nor has He ever been, an angel.


Heb 1
8*But to the Son, He (God the Father) says:
Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.

Direct quote of Psalm 45:6, directed to the King of Israel. Another claim of Jesus' kingship.


As Jesus is elevated to the status of Deity, the gives the scepter/throne of the Father's kingdom to the Son, and it will be the Son's Kingdom forever.

No. He was already called God before the scepter was given.


Heb 1
7*And of the angels He says:
Who makes His angels spirits
And His ministers a flame of fire.

A quote of Psa 104:4 which shows God's sovereignty over angels, and their mission to only be His messengers.


The other angels are subject to Jesus.*

Jesus is not an angel, so the angels are subject to Him as God. The word "other" in your reply was superfluous and improper.


Elsewhere in the New Testament we see that Jesus was chosen by God the Father to organize the hosts of heaven, organizing the powers, thrones, principalities and so forth (see 1 Col 1:16).

There is no "1" Colossians. And Colossians 1:16 says that He created them, not organized them.


Jesus was placed at the head of the hosts of heaven and became God's right hand;

No. He IS God's right Hand. See Isa.63:5, Isa.48:13, Isa.62:8, and Ps. 80:17


His Word, who fulfills the Father's will.* Jesus was also to be the Creator of the physical Universe as we know it (Heaven and Earth) under the direction of the Father, as mentioned in verse 2 and 10 of this chapter.*

And Isaiah says that God alone created it according to His own will, not the will of any other.


Let's look at verse 4, because it is important in this conversation:

Heb 1
4*having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

How did Jesus obtain the name and title of God?* He "obtained" it by INHERITANCE, by being elevated from among the other sons of God to a higher position!* Please note that Hebrews chapter 1 teaches that Jesus was "chosen/anointed" and that Jesus "obtained" the "more excellent name".* However, it is clearly well deserved.* As the only perfect spirit, Christ had no flaws and therefore could unite His will perfectly with God's, thus he "became better than the angels" becoming "one" with God and thus deserving the name of God.*

Wrong, wrong, wrong!! The "Name" that was given was "Jesus", the name by which we are saved. The name by which angels, demons, and all mankind are subject.

Philippians 2:9.

That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and in things in the earth, and things under the earth;
And every tongue should confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father.”



Now read verses 2 and 3:

Heb 1
2 God the Father] has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; 3*who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.



Your backtracking from a faulty premise is beginning to show pretty bad


Thus Jesus Christ, an exalted angel/son, who was "appointed" to be "heir of all things" and to be known as Jehovah in the Old Testament, and who now sits again on the right hand of the "Most High God".*

Jesus is not an angel, nor are the angels similar to Him. God orders the angels around as simple messengers. He exalts the Son.


That is how subordinationism was taught in the New Testament and understood within the Apostles' New Testament Church.*

No it isn't. Jesus was NEVER considered the same species as angels in the NT or by the Apostles. He may have shared their function as a messenger of the Father, but He was never considered the same as them. He was God and man.


This was long before the changes in doctrine which began to occur in the mid to second century A.D. in order to fit Greek philosophical monotheism.

No. The changes in doctrine were REJECTED in the mid second century in favor of what the Apostles taught, namely Jewish Monotheism and Wisdom theology.


The doctrinal changes solidified in Nicea and was found in creeds which describe the Father and Son to be "coequal" and "same substance" and and other terms/phrases not found in scripture.

False. That was what was taught all along. It was those who taught contrary that appeared later.


How does one "inherit" that which was already his? In the Trinity, the same Being is appointing itself, sending itself, and inheriting from itself.

Again, bastardizing the Trinity doctrine.


That, in my opinion, is wrong.

Well, when you so obviously don't even get what the Trinity does and does not teach, I'm not surprised...


The very same titles that belong to God the Father are given to the son.

The Son is never called the Father (with the exception of the unnecessarily vague translation in Isaiah).


Jesus was already spiritually perfect, and therefore Deity/God BEFORE entering mortality and had "inherited a more excellent name" BEFORE entering mortality.

So, are you claiming that Jesus was forever God, and that his "fire" was not lit at some point in the distant past by the Father's? Maybe there is hope for you yet... :pray:


The names and titles which are applicable to our Heavenly Father became applicable to the Son.

They never weren't.


Jesus Christ was the God of Israel, who interacted with the people, under the will and direction of the Father.

So is the Father, and so is the Holy Spirit. Yet there is only one God. None before and none after. One God. Eternally God. Never not been God.

ke7ejx
04-29-2014, 09:34 AM
The Danites?

The Danites.

Cow Poke
04-29-2014, 01:50 PM
The Danites.

The Dainties? :huh:

Bill the Cat
04-29-2014, 02:27 PM
The Dainties? :huh:

Doug Dimmadome??

thewriteranon
04-29-2014, 03:13 PM
Doug Dimmadome??

Owner of the Dimmsdale Dimmadome?

Cow Poke
04-29-2014, 04:20 PM
As Thread Starter, I must insist we get back on topic. There have been NO recent mentions of bacon.

Cerealman
04-29-2014, 04:26 PM
As Thread Starter, I must insist we get back on topic. There have been NO recent mentions of bacon.

If you had fairies you could wish for more bacon and make me king of tweb...

seven7up
04-29-2014, 10:16 PM
7UP: So, when the Book of Mormon said, Mary "is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh," it is accurate.


This is what you don't get -- Joseph claims to have gotten this from the "golden plates". WHY would "the most perfect book on earth" need "clarified" on such a crucial point?

Let's look at the claim of the "translation" process... (bolding mine)

The original translation was correct. "Son of God" was not likely to be on the plates at all. That was added by Joseph for the benefit of the modern reader, to know which member of the Godhead was being referred to.

-7up

seven7up
04-29-2014, 10:41 PM
Hey, 7up is back! I so don't have time to read and post right now, but just wanted to say hi.

--India


Hello.

seven7up
04-29-2014, 10:45 PM
Interesting you should try to make that comparison, 7up.

When God wanted us to know about Salvation through Christ, He sent us a sinless Savior prophesied throughout the Old Testament, and one in whom no guile was found, and sinless.

When Smith wanted us to believe that God sent HIMSELF to "restore" what Christ had done, God supposedly used a glass looking money digging woman chasing self promoting opportunist who couldn't get his story straight right from the beginning.


The similarity isn't that Joseph measures up to Jesus. Not even close.

However, I will say that people accused Jesus of being a lunatic, a fraud, or a myth. They still do. So, if a perfect and sinless man is accused of such things, then a sinful human being is even more likely to come under criticism.


I'm saying [the Book of Mormon] DID teach the Trinity, then Modalism, ....

I answered that. question.



So, then what do you do? You go into Ad hominem which does not advance the conversation.



a glass looking money digging woman chasing self promoting opportunist ...I believe Smith was a pathological liar and a fraud.

Then you jump all over the place from topic to topic instead of the original topic.

-- - - - - - - - - --

I would (and I imagine you would, too) be VERY careful about my pronouncements, personal character, trustworthiness, sexual conduct, faithfulness to my wife,

7UP: Imagine that God personally visits you tonight and asks you to start practicing polygamy as a direct command. How would you handle it? How would you go about it? Who would you ask? How would you tell your wife?


Interesting you should bring up the wife, 7up. That's the point at which I first began confidently declaring Smith a fraud -

You already start with the assumption that God did not command it, then you made conclusions based on that. My mind was open when I began investigating Mormonism.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

So, are we going to discuss the translation process? Polygamy? Whether or not prophets are flawed? Why don't you just throw in the Book of Abraham while you are at it?

This conversation is going to go nowhere if this is how you handle a discussion.

What was the original topic again?

-7up

seven7up
04-29-2014, 11:22 PM
Again, I wasn't saying that at all. You seem to be conveniently missing the whole point. In the EARLY STAGES, Mormonism taught the Trinity.

No it didn't. Like the Bible, I already showed how the Book of Mormon did not teach Modalism or the Trinity. The Book of Mormon shows a separation between Father and Son and an embodiment of the Father and an embodiment of the Son (i.e. the Father and Son each have shape, position, and form.) See: 3 Nephi 11:, 1 Nephi 11:1-11, Ether 3:14-18 or

3 Nephi 9:15 “Behold, I am Jesus Christ
the Son of God. I created the heavens and the earth,
and all things that in them are. I was with the Father
from the beginning. now let's look at the Lectures on Faith.

Having place WITH another Being, the Father, precludes the notion that Jesus is that same Being.



The Lectures on Faith differentiated between the Father and Son somewhat more explicitly, but even they did not define a materialistic, tritheistic Godhead. In announcing the publication of the Doctrine and Covenants which included the Lectures on Faith, the Messenger and Advocate commented editorially that it trusted the volume would give "the churches abroad . . . a perfect under¬standing of the doctrine believed by this society." The Lectures declared that "there are two personages who constitute the great matchless, governing and supreme power over all things—by whom all things were created and made." They are "the Father being a personage of spirit," and "the Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man., or, rather, man was formed after his likeness, and in his image." The "Articles and Covenants" called the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost "one God" rather than the Godhead, a term which Mormons generally use today to separate themselves from trinitarians.9

Note that God the Father was a SPIRIT, not a man with flesh and bones.

The lectures on Faith does not teach Trinitarianism or Modalism.

the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fullness. The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man—or rather, man was formed after his likeness and in his image. He is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father, possessing all the fullness of the Father, or the same fullness with the Father, being begotten of him;

Sidney Rigdon wrote most of the Lectures on Faith. We see here that he understood God the Father as being the same way that Jesus was described in the Book of Mormon, as an embodied spirit with hands, eyes, head, etc. Why didn't Joseph correct the "personage of spirit" phrasing? Because Joseph Smith didn't know that yet. Why would he? It is not like he had an opportunity to touch God the Father's physical body. That detail had to be revealed specifically to Joseph.

Earlier on this thread, I asked:
7UP: Are you asking whether or not Joseph Smith received from God every concept (related to the nature of the Godhead) all at once at the very beginning?

You responded:


And AGAIN I answer, no

Well, why then do you expect the early Mormons to know that the Father's embodiment was "tangible"?

-7up

seven7up
04-29-2014, 11:50 PM
How could Smith get anything wrong, 7up? He supposedly talked and saw God directly. He had the golden plates too. Exactly where would the confusion, or inconsistencies come from?

Why do you think that talking to God or having the golden plates would automatically impart to Joseph all aspects of theological knowledge all at once?

Again, I give you a comparison to the apostles in the gospel accounts of the New Testament. These guys were with Jesus Christ every day for at least a couple years. They STILL had all kinds of misunderstandings. Even after receiving teachings about certain specific things from Jesus, they still didn't grasp the concepts.

Double standard much Sparko?


Why would he tell Smith that the Trinity was true, then tell him it wasn't?

The early church did not teach that "the Trinity was true". Allow me to give you some quotes that further solidify what I have explained here:

These were produced by Joseph Smith in 1830:

Joseph rendered the meaning of Genesis 1:26 as:

"And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and it was so....And I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I them." (Moses 2:26-27.)

What does it mean when God says he created man "in mine own image"? Joseph Smith rendered the meaning of Genesis 5:1-2 as follows:

"In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; in the image of his own body, male and female, created he them" (Moses 6:8-9; emphasis added).

So, we have the teaching of a separation of the Father and Son, and insisting that both had some type of physical form which could be copied in the creation of humanity.

Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph's mother, mentioned that the LDS concept of God was different than that of other denominations (also in 1830):

"the different denominations are very much opposed to us.... for they worship a God without body or parts, and they know that our faith comes in contact with this principle."


Wake up dude! Read your own religion's literature with a bit of skepticism and ask some hard questions.

Say the folks who think they know about the my religion because they read some anti-mormon web sites.

Trust me Sparko, I have likely read more anti-mormon literature than you have. And when I come upon accusations like you and Cow Poke just attempted to promote, such as "early LDS taught the Trinity/Modalism" , I just shake my head and marvel at how uninformed you guys really are. All you have investigated is a bunch of biased sources providing half-truths and misinformation.

-7up

seven7up
04-30-2014, 01:49 AM
It's the way the Church has handled people who invent novel ideas that contradict what the Apostles taught their students all along,

Yet you cannot demonstrate that the "Trinity" is what the Apostles taught their students all along, or even that the Apostles taught it at all.


That's just a plain crappy bastardization of the Trinity doctrine. No one says the Father and Son are equal in authority. What we claim is they are co-equal in their essence. Functional subordination vs. ontological equality.

The early creeds (like the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed) did not define things that specifically. Why don't you provide me with your modern detailed definition of the Trinity, your "creed" so to speak. Then we can discuss it.

However, I have a feeling that we will be given into the Trinity word games and become lost. What does it mean to be "co-equal"? The definition is "equal with one another; having the same rank or importance". Not only does it imply equality between two things or two beings, but the same "rank" would mean the same authority. So you have to say, as you do here, that they are not equal in authority, but instead in "essence" or "glory" or "power". Well, you then have to explain why they would be equal in glory and power, if one has authority over the other. Why does the essence have authority here, but that same essence does not have authority there. Or if they are the same essence or the same being, how can it have authority and rank over itself? You then have to make up more phrases like "Functional subordination vs. ontological equality" in order to twist it into a level where people finally have to just say, "Eh, its a mystery."



7UP: We read in verse 3 that Jesus is not the same substance as the Father, but instead is a COPY of the Father or the "image/stamped imprint/facsimile/ of the Father's person".* There is a difference because the phrase "same substance" implies that they are literally the same being. That is not what the scriptures said.*


Rubbish. He is the exact representation of the Father's nature (or those things that make God God), ...

Is God the Father "omnipresent" by nature? Does God the Father bow Himself to a higher authority by nature? Does the Father beget by nature?

You say the "exact" representation, and Mormons would agree with that. However, your theology has to start qualifying that statement by shaving off certain characteristics.

7UP: Bill brought up the earlier discussion of Ex Nihilo creation, whereby I argued that there is no true free will in Ex Nihilo creation theology. I also addressed how the philosophical problems of evil and suffering in that scenario are insurmountable.


You argued that they were, but you failed miserably, when your argument boiled down to simply whining that "God COULD HAVE done better" in ex nihilo. And I showed you how that whine can be applicable to every theory of God, including yours.

The only way I failed was to get you to understand the Theodicy. It was not my fault that you didn't get it. The other people I spoke with understood it, but your mind is so entrenched in the Ex Nihilo mindset, that you cannot comprehend the implications that come with thinking any other way.

Case in point:

7UP: I lay out some of the details of those issues here in a video series: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...lH9MxxLwwWnAea
However, I did not yet create the video which discussed how Ex Nihilo Creation theology affected the development of Trinitarian dogma.
The Arian controversy following the era of Apostolic Christianity was mishandled.* The reason that the debate was fruitless is because almost all of the Christians had adopted "Ex Nihilo" creation theology by then, and creation "from nothing" was a foundation from which correct doctrines could not develop. We can all agree that if Jesus was "created out of nothing", then he could not be Deity.* In a sense, the Arians / Semi-Arians and subordinationalists had very good points, but the concept of creatio ex nihilo made it impossible to defend their case coherently.


Simply untrue. Deity can not be created nor obtained as an inherent nature. ... Any form of polytheism falls apart when a created being is classified as deity in and of itself.

In LDS theology, the characteristics of Deity ARE inherent eternally with Jesus Christ. The thing is, when you say 'create', you mean something different, because in your mind you are thinking of creation "from nothing."


But the problem exists when we understand that there is only one deity that exists as fire in and of itself. Lighting another fire implies that the first was also lit by something else. The fire had to start somewhere, and those things who were "lit" are mere immitations of that which is fire in and of itself, and that never needed something else to light it. The Son was never "lit", which implies that there was a time when He was "unlit". He has always been on fire as the Father has, as the Spirit has, yet there is only one "eternal flame" which is God.

The thing is, that the "second" fire is not to be considered entirely separate from the first. It was described by Justin Martyr more like a fire that is "spreading" and becoming more encompassing, and drawing in more individuals. I suppose the correct way to word it is that fire is singular and the flames spread and become more as more fuel is pulled in, thus the glory of God continues to increase into eternity.

Justin Martyr placed the genesis of the "Logos" as a voluntary act of the Father before the beginning of creation. This is fine from an LDS perspective as long as you understand that this is not meant to imply creation from nothing. The "flames" spread to a unique and uncreated intelligence which had perfect characteristics from eternity. Jesus Christ became the Firstbegotten in spirit and was "naturally" Deity (which gave Him the birthright to become the Firstbegotten in physical immortality as well). This concept fits Scripture.

How do Trinitarians get around the teaching of Jesus being created/begotten? That would be problematic because, from the Ex Nihilo perspective, that would imply that Jesus is not an eternal being. So, those making the creeds invented the phrase "eternally begotten", as if the Son must be continuously sustained and issued forth from the Father.

I find that phrase problematic because, "in Christ all the fullness of Deity dwells bodily". (Col 2:9)

How can the "fullness of Deity" be found withing Jesus Christ himself, if he has to be "eternally begotten"?

To the contrary, according to my view, in the Godhead, there is a "oneness" that exists among 3 beings, each of whom are fully "Deity", because, for example, the fire spread to another eternal being, who now has this fullness of Deity as a result. However, keep in mind that they are not "separate" in the complete sense, because they also hold a deep interpersonal relationship.

Now, IF they were not each considered fully Deity individually, it could not be said of Jesus that he has "the fulness of Deity" as the scriptures claim, because according to your view, the fulness of Deity must include all 3 as one being. In other words, Trinitarians (and Modalists) contradict the scriptures because they force themselves into a position whereby the fullness of Deity must be referring to all three together as an immutable, incomprehensible and omnipresent essence - Logically this means that the fulness of Deity cannot exist within Jesus bodily.

And finally, the LDS faith simply defines "oneness" differently than you do, as we use "oneness" in the same way as it is used in the Bible. We do not take the idea of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being "one" to the literal extreme that Trinitarians and Modalists do. We understand that being "one" refers to that harmony and "perichoresis" of the those within that deep interpersonal relationship whereby their spirits hold a constant communication and singular will.

-7up

Cow Poke
04-30-2014, 04:01 AM
Why do you think that talking to God or having the golden plates would automatically impart to Joseph all aspects of theological knowledge all at once?

No, but it CERTAINLY wouldn't be....

"Teach A"
Ooooops, Did I say "Teach A"?

I meant "Teach B"

:no:

Smith made it up as he went along.

Cow Poke
04-30-2014, 04:04 AM
The similarity isn't that Joseph measures up to Jesus. Not even close.

However, I will say that people accused Jesus of being a lunatic, a fraud, or a myth. They still do. So, if a perfect and sinless man is accused of such things, then a sinful human being is even more likely to come under criticism.
-7up

Yes, I've heard all that stupidity before --- Jesus didn't constantly give them REASON and CAUSE to make accusations of substance. Smith did.


MAJOR big difference, and it's a slap in the face to Christ that you would attempt to drag Him down in such a disgusting manner. :glare:

Smith was a fraud. Jesus was sinless.

Sparko
04-30-2014, 06:10 AM
Why do you think that talking to God or having the golden plates would automatically impart to Joseph all aspects of theological knowledge all at once?

That's the beauty of being God's Prophet and Mouthpiece. Smith didn't have to understand anything. He was God's scribe. His secretary. He just had to write down what God told him to write down. And translate the plates that God gave him. You seem to think that it was Smith's job to understand and make up doctrine. While WE believe that he made up doctrines and commands because he was a phony conman, the LDS church doesn't. God appeared to him, spoke to him face to face, told him what to say and do, what to write, and translated the plates for him, PERFECTLY.

So there would be no errors. God would not change his mind. Smith would get it all correctly. But he didn't.



Again, I give you a comparison to the apostles in the gospel accounts of the New Testament. These guys were with Jesus Christ every day for at least a couple years. They STILL had all kinds of misunderstandings. Even after receiving teachings about certain specific things from Jesus, they still didn't grasp the concepts.

The Apostles had misunderstandings while they were learning from Jesus. He corrected them on the way. Once they got the Holy Spirit afterwards, they were inspired by God to write the gospels, which do not contradict themselves. And God doesn't tell them one thing one day and the opposite the next. And they didn't even talk to the Father face to face!



Double standard much Sparko? No, 7up. It seems you like to use the same old excuses that all mormons do. When preaching why the LDS church is the restored church, you all like to brag how perfect the BoM is, that Smith knew and talked to God personally, and all of the Christian churches were wrong. When it is pointed out to you that Smith, nor the BoM is perfect, that contradictions abound, all of a sudden its "so? your guys did the same thing!" -- LOL.





The early church did not teach that "the Trinity was true".
I quoted to you from the three witness statement on the BoM already. It ends with a statement of the Trinity. ONE God, three persons. Later Smith changed it to multiple Gods.





Say the folks who think they know about the my religion because they read some anti-mormon web sites. No. I have read the Book of Mormon myself. Studied the D&C, and learned on my own. The LDS church is a hot mess. I assume you were born into it and that is why it seems so normal to you and you don't question anything. Am I right?


Trust me Sparko, I have likely read more anti-mormon literature than you have. And when I come upon accusations like you and Cow Poke just attempted to promote, such as "early LDS taught the Trinity/Modalism" , I just shake my head and marvel at how uninformed you guys really are. All you have investigated is a bunch of biased sources providing half-truths and misinformation.

This I seriously doubt. Or perhaps you read the info with a squinted eye, not wanting to actually consider any evidence against your religion. Most mormons have a knack for ignoring the problems and hand-waving them away. Suspension of disbelief.

Sparko
04-30-2014, 06:16 AM
The similarity isn't that Joseph measures up to Jesus. Not even close.

That's not what Smith taught.

God is in the still small voice. In all these affidavits, indictments, it is all of the devil--all corruption. Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on the top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.

Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 6, pp. 408-409

Cerealman
04-30-2014, 02:07 PM
That's not what Smith taught.

God is in the still small voice. In all these affidavits, indictments, it is all of the devil--all corruption. Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on the top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.

Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 6, pp. 408-409
Wow,guy had a pretty big ego.

Cow Poke
04-30-2014, 02:50 PM
Wow,guy had a pretty big ego.

Yes, he was a classic narcissist.

seven7up
04-30-2014, 07:11 PM
7UP: God the Father IS God/Deity. Jesus Christ IS God/Deity. It is quite difficult to "differentiate" between them because they act as "one".


Because there is only one God.

LDS scripture says that there is one God. For example, when Christ says in Doctrine and Covenants: "I am the true light ... I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one." (D&C 93:2-3)

The question is: In what sense are they "one"? Oneness of God can be found in scripture in the following ways:

(1) There is only one perfectly united, mutually indwelling, divine community. We call that community "God" and there is only one such community.
(2) There is only one God who is our Father or the fount of divinity (ie "the Most High God).
(3) There is only one divine nature or set of properties severally necessary and jointly sufficient for divinity.
(4) When compared to the false gods of other nations, there was only one Lord/Saviour who could provide redemption/salvation


If your claim that the Father is the literal father of all angels, then vs. 5 is nonsense because to ALL of the angels He is a Father and they are His sons. So, instead of Jesus' unique place as the ONLY begotten, we would have these answers:

Heb 1:5 For to which of the angels did He ever say,
“You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You”?

Answer: ALL of them

And again,
I will be a Father to Him
And He shall be a Son to Me”?

Answer: ALL of them


All of them are "sons of God" in the spiritual sense. However, as the First born spirit and the chosen/anointed one, Jesus was to be the ONLY Begotten son according to the flesh. The wording is consistent with LDS doctrine. Jesus was the Firstbegotten in spirit and, as the anointed Savior and Only begotten in the flesh, he was given power to become the Firstbegotten in the resurrection.

“Jesus Christ is the heir of this Kingdom—the Only Begotten of the Father according to the flesh, and holds the keys over all this world” (Smith, Teachings, 323 - emphasis added).

Heb 1
9You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.


Again, a kingly praise from Psalm 45:

Yes, and it refers to Jesus Christ, who is Deity. It is entirely proper to say that the God of Jesus Christ is God the Father.

"Jesus saith unto her, ... I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." (John 20:17)

Also, as a side note, IF God and Jesus were the same Being, and IF God the Father were literally omnipresent, then Jesus would not have to "ascend" to Heaven in order to be in the presence of the Father.

7UP: You see here that God (the God of Jesus) chose and anointed Jesus from among his "companions" (sometimes translated "fellows")


this is a kingly claim that He alone among humanity was worthy. THAT is the "fellows" or "companions" that are being referred to here, just as in Psalm 45.

The writer of Hebrews is EQUATING angels and humans, just like Latter Day Saints do. Humans and angels are the same people, as we are all spiritual sons of God. Jesus was the Only Begotten according to the flesh, but there were other "sons of God" according to the spirit. Hebrews 1 is speaking of the angels in comparison to the "firstbegotten":

Heb 1
4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

You are right that Psalms is referring to humanity, but it is clear from the context that Hebrews is referring to the other sons of God (i.e. angels). This is because humanity and the sons of God are the same and Jesus was chosen from among these fellow beings, due to His superiority.


Wrong. We see that He was not an angel (as He was made lower than angels while He sojourned on earth)

He was only 'made lower than the angels' in the sense that His glory was veiled. At the mount of transfiguration, apostles saw the glory of Christ which was the true reality. Jesus still had command over his "fellows" (the angels) even in mortality.


No. Hebrews 1 makes a clear distinction that the Son is NOT, nor has He ever been, an angel.

Here is a scripture referring to Jesus Christ, who was Jehovah in the Old Testament:
"He blessed Joseph, and said, 'The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, The God who has been my shepherd all my life to this day, The angel who has redeemed me from all evil,'" (Genesis 48:15-16 - emphasis added)

We also know that "morning star" and "son of the morning" are angelic titles.

"I (Jesus) am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star." (Rev 22:16 - See also 2 Peter 1:19 which again refers to Jesus as "morning star")


Jesus is not an angel, so the angels are subject to Him as God. The word "other" in your reply was superfluous and improper.

As I showed above, the context of Hebrews 1 is speaking of angels, and how Jesus was chosen/anointed from among his "fellows". Christ's foreordination occurred from BEFORE the foundation of the world. (1 Peter 1:20) , before Adam had even been created and before anybody became human/mortal.


Colossians 1:16 says that He created them, not organized them.

Your complaint against the concept of "organizing" in creation simply stems from your Ex Nihilo mindset. Your understanding of creation does not match the way it is used in the Bible. I addressed that in my New Testament presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XFST2-vfIY

-7up

seven7up
05-01-2014, 12:18 AM
7UP: The similarity isn't that Joseph measures up to Jesus. Not even close.


That's not what Smith taught.

God is in the still small voice. In all these affidavits, indictments, it is all of the devil--all corruption. Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on the top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.

Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 6, pp. 408-409

I see that instead of discussing the topic of this thread, you prefer to run through all the anti-Mormon talking points. Including the ones that you likely know very little about. And why would you? The anti-Mormon websites never give the context.

Allow me to inform you, since you refuse to inform yourself. Since this was recorded after Joseph's death, some people have doubts that Joseph even said it, or at least not in the way that it is recorded. However, I think that it is likely that Joseph said it. So, let's assume that the quote is 100% accurate. Why was Joseph "boasting"? All we have to do is look at the context of the discourse.

The part you quoted says, "Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers!" He says this because there were people in the crowd who had just attacked him. They persecuted him to try to stop him from building the Church.

With that in mind, let's also see what Joseph said. First he read from one of Paul's letters in the New Testament.

2 Corinthians 11:
"Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me.... For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles. ... As the truth of Christ is in me, no man shall stop me of this boasting in the regions of Achaia. ... I say again, let no man think me a fool; if otherwise, yet as a fool receive me, that I may boast myself a little. That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting. Seeing that many glory after the flesh, I will glory also. For ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise. ... Howbeit whereinsoever any is bold, (I speak foolishly,) I am bold also."

Paul goes on to boast about being a minister, his lineage as a Hebrew, about being whipped, being shipwrecked, persecuted, etc.

"Christians" had pulled Joseph Smith from his home, beaten him and tarred and feathered him. So, shortly after, Joseph read to the anti-Mormons about Paul, who also was persecuted, but then boasted. But the point of Paul's boasting was not to glory in himself. Paul goes on to say later that in all this he glories in Christ, who made it possible.

So, Joseph Smith reads this chapter from Paul to his audience, then goes on to "boast". Like Paul, he is purposefully boasting from a worldy/"foolish" perspective. After he is done using Paul's tactic, later in the discourse, Joseph then goes on and says that he "teaches the things of Christ" and admonishes the members of the Church to be humble.

So, it is proven again how little you know. The anti-Mormon websites will leave you looking like a fool every time.

-7up

seven7up
05-01-2014, 01:31 AM
7UP: Why do you think that talking to God or having the golden plates would automatically impart to Joseph all aspects of theological knowledge all at once?


That's the beauty of being God's Prophet and Mouthpiece. Smith didn't have to understand anything. He was God's scribe. His secretary. He just had to write down what God told him to write down. And translate the plates that God gave him.

Yes. And the plates were the words of ancient prophets, some of whom did not always specify the members of the Godhead. Guess what? The Old Testament prophets did not specify either. Therefore, you have nothing but another double standard.



You seem to think that it was Smith's job to understand ... doctrine.

He had to understand it in order to relay the doctrines to other people. I explained an example to Cow Poke. Joseph understood from the First Vision and the translated plates that we truly are created in the image of God (likeness and image). However, there was not anything in his experience or in the translation which would have clarified the idea that God the Father was not only a Spirit. It took a specific revelation to reveal that the Father, like Jesus, is a Spirit that dwells within flesh and bone. As Paul describes it, "a spiritual body" which Christ demonstrated in the resurrection to be tangible.


God appeared to him, spoke to him face to face, told him what to say and do, what to write, ... PERFECTLY.

You act as if he was entirely controlled by God in everything he did, said or wrote. Sorry, but Joseph was not a puppet. That isn't how it works.


The Apostles had misunderstandings while they were learning from Jesus. He corrected them on the way.

Even when Jesus attempted to correct them, they still did not grasp it fully.


And they (the Apostles) didn't even talk to the Father face to face!

They got the same message from the Father that Joseph did, which was Christ at the right hand of the Father, who said, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him."


No, 7up. It seems you like to use the same old excuses that all mormons do. When preaching why the LDS church is the restored church, you all like to brag how perfect the BoM is, ...When it is pointed out to you that Smith, nor the BoM is perfect,

Here is an example of a straw man. You don't have to "point out" to LDS that the Joseph and the Book of Mormon are not perfect. We knew it all along. In fact, it is specifically taught in the LDS church that there are flaws. Only evangelical Christians hold to "inerrancy". The Book of Mormon is claimed to be "an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and an abridgment taken from the Book of Ether also, ... And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God " Prophets and apostles are given revelations or have experiences with God, then they write down those revelations or experiences (sometimes history). The very fact that spiritual ideas have to be placed in human language ruins the idea of "inerrancy".

Even the original plates were not claimed to be completely "perfect" and admits the idea of faults/mistakes. Certainly you have in mind the phrase Joseph Smith said about the Book of Mormon being "the most correct of any book on earth". Of course, anti-mormons often take that phrase out of context, and purposefully miss the point that Joseph was making. Being "correct" was not referring to punctuation, spelling, grammar, or even deep doctrine. Joseph said: “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” His point was about Christ-like living and drawing closer to God in a personal relationship. Anti-Mormons purposefully ignore that part and pretend that Joseph meant something entirely different.


I quoted to you from the three witness statement on the BoM already. It ends with a statement of the Trinity. ONE God, three persons.

Your analysis is far too shallow. It is NOT a statement of the Trinity unless "ONE God" is specifically described as a "single metaphysical substance". LDS never taught that. We understand "ONENESS" in the same sense as it is used everywhere else in the Bible. Here are some examples:


Mark 10:8 A man will cleave unto his wife, "they twain shall be ONE flesh".

Do you believe that when a man and a woman marry ... they become the same person, one in metaphysical substance? Of course not.* How about some more?

Acts 4:32 multitude ... of one heart and of one soul

Rom. 12:5 we, being many, are one body in Christ

2 Cor. 13:11 Be perfect ... of one mind

Gal. 3:28 ye are all one in Christ

Philip. 1:27 one spirit, with one mind striving together

Go through these and attempt to take them literally. Go ahead. That is how wrong you are about "oneness" in the Godhead. Now the real kicker:

John 17: 22 "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one."

We are to be one EVEN AS Jesus is one with the Father. This is not in a literal sense of becoming the same single Being.

How does it feel to learn that the view of "oneness" in the LDS church is more Biblical than the Trinitarian view?



7UP: Trust me Sparko, I have likely read more anti-mormon literature than you have. And when I come upon accusations like you and Cow Poke just attempted to promote, such as "early LDS taught the Trinity/Modalism" , I just shake my head and marvel at how uninformed you guys really are. All you have investigated is a bunch of biased sources providing half-truths and misinformation.


This I seriously doubt. Or perhaps you read the info with a squinted eye, not wanting to actually consider any evidence against your religion. Most mormons have a knack for ignoring the problems and hand-waving them away.... I have read the Book of Mormon myself. Studied the D&C, and learned on my own. The LDS church is a hot mess. I assume you were born into it and that is why it seems so normal to you and you don't question anything. Am I right?

You are wrong at every assertion.

Treating history fairly (and not with a double standard), is not the same as 'hand waving'. Perhaps you can tell me where I have "ignored problems".

You have not demonstrated that you know much at all about LDS doctrine, history, or practice. Like I said, all I see from you are the typical talking points from anti-sites.

As for my history, I began investigating the LDS church when I was studying for my undergraduate degree at the University of Missouri and it was at that time that I began studying anti-Mormon literature.

-7up

seven7up
05-01-2014, 01:38 AM
Yes, I've heard all that stupidity before --- Jesus didn't constantly give them REASON and CAUSE to make accusations of substance. Smith did.


Smith was just a human being. Flaws and all.





MAJOR big difference, and it's a slap in the face to Christ that you would attempt to drag Him down in such a disgusting manner.

It is a "slap in the face" to recognize the difference between the perfect Son of God compared to a sinful human?

You are simply feigning offense.

Why do you think that talking to God or having the golden plates would automatically impart to Joseph all aspects of theological knowledge all at once?
No, but it CERTAINLY wouldn't be....



"Teach A"
Ooooops, Did I say "Teach A"?

I meant "Teach B


I am still waiting for you to provide a good example of this, preferably in relation to the topic of this thread, the Trinity/Godhead. Give specifics. What was "teaching A" and what was "teaching B"?

-7up

Cow Poke
05-01-2014, 04:24 AM
Smith was just a human being. Flaws and all.

So was Jack the Ripper. :yes:


It is a "slap in the face" to recognize the difference between the perfect Son of God compared to a sinful human?

ONLY when that human being is a pathological liar claiming to be THE PROPHET God chose to "restore" His Church. Did you kinda sorta forget that part? :huh: And it doesn't help that he USED that position to gain financially, sexually... it was ALL ABOUT HIMSELF. NOTHING like Christ.


You are simply feigning offense.

Nope. I'm offended by Smith's lies and fraud.


Why do you think that talking to God or having the golden plates would automatically impart to Joseph all aspects of theological knowledge all at once?

It's disappointing that you maintain this DISHONEST approach -- please show me where I have made such a claim. :glare:


No, but it CERTAINLY wouldn't be....
I am still waiting for you to provide a good example of this, preferably in relation to the topic of this thread, the Trinity/Godhead. Give specifics. What was "teaching A" and what was "teaching B"?

-7up

For those readers who don't simply slam their eyes shut and ignore the evidence...
http://www.mormonismi.net/pdf/Reconstruction_of_Mormon_Doctrine_Alexander.pdf

Smith made it up as he went along.

Cow Poke
05-01-2014, 04:31 AM
7UP: Why do you think that talking to God or having the golden plates would automatically impart to Joseph all aspects of theological knowledge all at once?

It looks like you've been to the "don't answer the question they asked - answer the question they SHOULD have asked" school. :smile: NOBODY HERE is claiming that Smith had "all aspects of theological knowledge all at once"? Where'd you get that? Is that in "Mormon Talking Points for Dummies"? :huh: How bout dealing with what we're actually SAYING, and stop playing Mormon Goofy Games?


Yes. And the plates were the words of ancient prophets,

No, they weren't. They were just made up by Smith, just like he would tell long drawn out grandiose stories at home as a child.


some of whom did not always specify the members of the Godhead. Guess what? The Old Testament prophets did not specify either. Therefore, you have nothing but another double standard.

So, God takes the time to hide some golden plates in the side of a hill, and 2,000 years after Christ, he gets a local conman to go dig them up, provides a "urim and thummim" and a precise translation process, CAREFULLY "lights up the letters one at a time", Smith CONFIRMS each letter so there is NO ERROR, and Smith STILL gets it wrong?

Come on, 7, you're smarter than that.

Cow Poke
05-01-2014, 05:08 AM
Here's what Mormons claim NOW:


DO MORMONS BELIEVE IN THE TRINITY?
Mormons most commonly use the term “Godhead” to refer to the Trinity. The first article of faith for the Latter-day Saints reads: “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.” Latter-day Saints believe God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are one in will and purpose but are not literally the same being or substance, as conceptions of the Holy Trinity commonly imply.

Here is what they USED to claim:


“Through Christ we understand the terms on which God will show favour and grace to the world, and by him we have ground of a PARRESIA access with freedom and boldness unto God. On his account we may hope not only for grace to subdue our sins, resist temptations, conquer the devil and the world; but having ’fought this good fight, and finished our course by patient continuance in well doing, we may justly look for glory, honor, and immortality,’ and that ‘crown of righteousness which is laid up for those who wait in faith,’ holiness, and humility, for the appearance of Christ from heaven. Now what things can there be of greater moment and importance for men to know, or God to reveal, than the nature of God and ourselves the state and condition of our souls, the only way to avoid eternal misery and enjoy everlasting bliss!

“The Scriptures discover not only matters of importance, but of the greatest depth and mysteriousness. There are many wonderful things in the law of God, things we may admire, but are never able to comprehend. Such are the eternal purposes and decrees of God, THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, the incarnation of the Son of God, and the manner of the operation of the Spirit of God upon the souls of men, which are all things of great weight and moment for us to understand and believe that they are, and yet may be unsearchable to our reason, as to the particular manner of them.”

You appear to have two options, 7....

A) Decry the Mormon publication The Evening and Morning Star is not "official" (that's what Mormons USUALLY do when confronted with MORMON sources they don't like)
2) Launch into a kabuki dance explaining that "the Doctrine of the Trinity" meant something completely different, and "incarnation of the Son of God" does not mean that God became flesh in Christ.

:popcorn:

Sparko
05-01-2014, 05:24 AM
7UP: God the Father IS God/Deity. Jesus Christ IS God/Deity. It is quite difficult to "differentiate" between them because they act as "one".



LDS scripture says that there is one God. For example, when Christ says in Doctrine and Covenants: "I am the true light ... I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one." (D&C 93:2-3)

The question is: In what sense are they "one"? Oneness of God can be found in scripture in the following ways:

(1) There is only one perfectly united, mutually indwelling, divine community. We call that community "God" and there is only one such community.
(2) There is only one God who is our Father or the fount of divinity (ie "the Most High God).
(3) There is only one divine nature or set of properties severally necessary and jointly sufficient for divinity.
(4) When compared to the false gods of other nations, there was only one Lord/Saviour who could provide redemption/salvation


God is quite clear that he is the ONLY God.

Deuteronomy 4:35
You were shown these things so that you might know that the Lord is God; besides him there is no other.

Isaiah 44:6 “This is what the Lord says—
Israel’s King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty:
I am the first and I am the last;
apart from me there is no God.
7 Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it.
Let him declare and lay out before me
what has happened since I established my ancient people,
and what is yet to come—
yes, let them foretell what will come.
8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid.
Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago?
You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me?
No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.”

Isaiah 46:9
Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me.

So there is only one God, there were none before him, and will be none after him. And there is none like him.
Either the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God, one diety, or if the LDS idea that Jesus is Jehovah in the OT is right, then Jesus is the only God and the Father is not God at all.

Once again the LDS shoot themselves in the foot with their own doctrines.

Sparko
05-01-2014, 05:33 AM
7UP: Why do you think that talking to God or having the golden plates would automatically impart to Joseph all aspects of theological knowledge all at once?



Yes. And the plates were the words of ancient prophets, some of whom did not always specify the members of the Godhead. Guess what? The Old Testament prophets did not specify either. Therefore, you have nothing but another double standard.

Yet when God gave them words to speak to the people or to write down, they wrote them down exactly as God wanted. No mistakes. But you claim Smith could not do this? That with God standing right there telling him what to say, he still couldn't get it right? If that is the case, then Smith is one of the worst prophets of all time and you should not believe a thing he said because you can't be sure if it is true or a mistake.






He had to understand it in order to relay the doctrines to other people. I explained an example to Cow Poke. Joseph understood from the First Vision and the translated plates that we truly are created in the image of God (likeness and image). However, there was not anything in his experience or in the translation which would have clarified the idea that God the Father was not only a Spirit. It took a specific revelation to reveal that the Father, like Jesus, is a Spirit that dwells within flesh and bone. As Paul describes it, "a spiritual body" which Christ demonstrated in the resurrection to be tangible.

Surely God could tell him the things he needed to understand? Surely Smith could have at least repeated what God wanted him to say?






You act as if he was entirely controlled by God in everything he did, said or wrote. Sorry, but Joseph was not a puppet. That isn't how it works.

Never said he was a puppet. He was a "prophet" - someone who God dictated to and who was supposed to give God's words to the people UNCHANGED and CORRECT. In the OT if a prophet got it wrong, they were to be stoned and not believed. Therefore, if Smith got it wrong, even once, then he should not have been believed. It is YOU who want a double standard.




Even when Jesus attempted to correct them, they still did not grasp it fully. The apostles were not prophets. They were followers.







Here is an example of a straw man. You don't have to "point out" to LDS that the Joseph and the Book of Mormon are not perfect. We knew it all along. In fact, it is specifically taught in the LDS church that there are flaws. Only evangelical Christians hold to "inerrancy". The Book of Mormon is claimed to be "an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and an abridgment taken from the Book of Ether also, ... And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God " Prophets and apostles are given revelations or have experiences with God, then they write down those revelations or experiences (sometimes history). The very fact that spiritual ideas have to be placed in human language ruins the idea of "inerrancy".

Even the original plates were not claimed to be completely "perfect" and admits the idea of faults/mistakes. Certainly you have in mind the phrase Joseph Smith said about the Book of Mormon being "the most correct of any book on earth". Of course, anti-mormons often take that phrase out of context, and purposefully miss the point that Joseph was making. Being "correct" was not referring to punctuation, spelling, grammar, or even deep doctrine. Joseph said: “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” His point was about Christ-like living and drawing closer to God in a personal relationship. Anti-Mormons purposefully ignore that part and pretend that Joseph meant something entirely different.


The most perfect book ever written is full of flaws? Then how do you know what is truth and what is flaw? You can't trust any of it.

Sparko
05-01-2014, 05:43 AM
7UP: The similarity isn't that Joseph measures up to Jesus. Not even close.



I see that instead of discussing the topic of this thread, you prefer to run through all the anti-Mormon talking points. Including the ones that you likely know very little about. And why would you? The anti-Mormon websites never give the context.

I have not visited one anti-mormon site in years. This is stuff that is so obvious to anyone except mormons, that I am sure the same points come up in many places. But instead of engaging, you just use "anti-mormon" as a way to handwave away the topic and not even think about it. And your replies are from "pro-LDS" literature and sites, repeating the same "answers" but showing you have no understanding of the point in the first place. :ahem:


Allow me to inform you, since you refuse to inform yourself. Since this was recorded after Joseph's death, some people have doubts that Joseph even said it, or at least not in the way that it is recorded. However, I think that it is likely that Joseph said it. So, let's assume that the quote is 100% accurate. Why was Joseph "boasting"? All we have to do is look at the context of the discourse.

The part you quoted says, "Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers!" He says this because there were people in the crowd who had just attacked him. They persecuted him to try to stop him from building the Church.

With that in mind, let's also see what Joseph said. First he read from one of Paul's letters in the New Testament.

2 Corinthians 11:
"Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me.... For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles. ... As the truth of Christ is in me, no man shall stop me of this boasting in the regions of Achaia. ... I say again, let no man think me a fool; if otherwise, yet as a fool receive me, that I may boast myself a little. That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting. Seeing that many glory after the flesh, I will glory also. For ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise. ... Howbeit whereinsoever any is bold, (I speak foolishly,) I am bold also."

Paul goes on to boast about being a minister, his lineage as a Hebrew, about being whipped, being shipwrecked, persecuted, etc.

"Christians" had pulled Joseph Smith from his home, beaten him and tarred and feathered him. So, shortly after, Joseph read to the anti-Mormons about Paul, who also was persecuted, but then boasted. But the point of Paul's boasting was not to glory in himself. Paul goes on to say later that in all this he glories in Christ, who made it possible.

So, Joseph Smith reads this chapter from Paul to his audience, then goes on to "boast". Like Paul, he is purposefully boasting from a worldy/"foolish" perspective. After he is done using Paul's tactic, later in the discourse, Joseph then goes on and says that he "teaches the things of Christ" and admonishes the members of the Church to be humble.

So, it is proven again how little you know. The anti-Mormon websites will leave you looking like a fool every time.

-7up

Thanks for the context. I have read it all by the way. The problem is not Smith claiming to be boasting, but WHAT he is boasting. He is boasting that he is greater than Jesus because he held the church together and even Jesus was not able to do that.

That is pure arrogance, and a lie.

In that quote, Smith sounds exactly like what he was: the Spawn of Satan himself.

Bill the Cat
05-01-2014, 09:15 AM
Yet you cannot demonstrate that the "Trinity" is what the Apostles taught their students all along, or even that the Apostles taught it at all.

What I can show is that the Apostles and their students taught 1) Monotheism, and 2) the Triadic formula. It was not until the second was challenged internally by the novel ideas of Arianism, Monarchianism, Patripassianism and Sabellianism that the church had to formally ratify the existing beliefs of the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as one substance (ousia) and three co-equal persons (hypostaseis).




The early creeds (like the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed) did not define things that specifically. Why don't you provide me with your modern detailed definition of the Trinity, your "creed" so to speak. Then we can discuss it.

The relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is one substance (ousia) and three co-equal persons (hypostaseis). There is only one God, eternal, uncreated, and unchangeable in His eternal Godhood. There exists within that one substance we call God 3 distinct centers of consciousness, all equally God due to sharing that substance. All 3 centers of consciousness have eternally existed as God, all 3 being uncreated. There never was a time when any of them "attained" that substance, nor can any other being attain it.



However, I have a feeling that we will be given into the Trinity word games and become lost.

Not if you preserve monotheism as the central key.


What does it mean to be "co-equal"?

It means that one is not "less God" than another. None of them "became God". They are all 3 fully God, yet there is only one God.


The definition is "equal with one another; having the same rank or importance".

All are equally God. One can not be taken away from being God, nor can any other being "join" them as God.


Not only does it imply equality between two things or two beings, but the same "rank" would mean the same authority.

Not true. My wife and I are both co-equally human beings, yet we do not share the same authority. Ontologically, we share our humanity while functionally, she is subservant to me, as I am to Christ.


So you have to say, as you do here, that they are not equal in authority, but instead in "essence" or "glory" or "power".

Correct.


Well, you then have to explain why they would be equal in glory and power, if one has authority over the other.

Because they are the one God.


Why does the essence have authority here, but that same essence does not have authority there.

It is a function of the being.


Or if they are the same essence or the same being, how can it have authority and rank over itself?

Because they are distinct centers of consciousness within that one essence, but not of separate substances.


You then have to make up more phrases like "Functional subordination vs. ontological equality" in order to twist it into a level where people finally have to just say, "Eh, its a mystery."

Seriously? You want to play the "twister" game? How can the Father be God if Jehovah (Jesus) said there were no other gods except Him? How can Jehovah (Jesus) tell the Jews to only worship Him, yet when He came to earth, he told them to worship Elohim (Heavenly Father), thus breaking Torah commands himself and telling others to break them? How can Jehovah (Jesus) have earned his godhood from his father Elohim (Heavenly Father), who earned his own, say that there was no God formed before him, when his father clearly was formed before him in the Father's own mortal existence?




7UP: We read in verse 3 that Jesus is not the same substance as the Father, but instead is a COPY of the Father or the "image/stamped imprint/facsimile/ of the Father's person".* There is a difference because the phrase "same substance" implies that they are literally the same being. That is not what the scriptures said.*


Yes it does. And the phrase means that Jesus' human form is a physical representation (or manifestation if you can ignore the not-applicable temporary nature of the term manifestation) of the glory of God.



Is God the Father "omnipresent" by nature?

Yes. So is the Son. His ADDITIONAL Human nature, which did not in ANY way change His divine nature, was not omnipresent.


Does God the Father bow Himself to a higher authority by nature?

No. Neither do Jesus or the Spirit. They do that as a result of their function. That means they do so by choice.


Does the Father beget by nature?

No. He does so by function.


You say the "exact" representation, and Mormons would agree with that. However, your theology has to start qualifying that statement by shaving off certain characteristics.

No we don't. You seem to not understand the difference between nature and function. By nature, humans are 98.6 degrees farenheight. By nature, we breathe, our heart beats, and our brain synapses fire. By FUNCTION, we work for other humans, we have children, and we worship God. The man Jesus is the exact physical representation of who God is, not what He chooses to do.



The only way I failed was to get you to understand the Theodicy.

Nope. Your whole argument was nothing more than "In Ex Nihilo, God CAN do better, so He SHOULD do better"


It was not my fault that you didn't get it. The other people I spoke with understood it, but your mind is so entrenched in the Ex Nihilo mindset, that you cannot comprehend the implications that come with thinking any other way.

No they didn't "get it". Nick certainly didn't. RBerman didn't. 37813 didn't. Nor did Sparko or Cow Poke. And we have no problem accepting the "implications" of God not doing what WE think is better.




Case in point:

7UP: I lay out some of the details of those issues here in a video series: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...lH9MxxLwwWnAea
However, I did not yet create the video which discussed how Ex Nihilo Creation theology affected the development of Trinitarian dogma.
The Arian controversy following the era of Apostolic Christianity was mishandled.* The reason that the debate was fruitless is because almost all of the Christians had adopted "Ex Nihilo" creation theology by then, and creation "from nothing" was a foundation from which correct doctrines could not develop. We can all agree that if Jesus was "created out of nothing", then he could not be Deity.* In a sense, the Arians / Semi-Arians and subordinationalists had very good points, but the concept of creatio ex nihilo made it impossible to defend their case coherently.

Ex Nihilo is why Arianism was relatively easy to defeat, especially from a scriptural standpoint. As I pointed out to you before the crash, the early church taught that only God was uncreated, therefore, the Son, if "created" can not be God.



In LDS theology, the characteristics of Deity ARE inherent eternally with Jesus Christ.

Are you now denying that Jesus attained his godhood in Mormon theology? If so, then I'm done here, because this is the Mormonism forum, and the LDS church DOES teach it. If not, then we can progress through scripture showing you that it is impossible to "attain" the nature of God.


The thing is, when you say 'create', you mean something different, because in your mind you are thinking of creation "from nothing."

I realize that. In your mind, "creation" means moving things around from place to place.



The thing is, that the "second" fire is not to be considered entirely separate from the first.

Correct. It is not, as Justin puts it, as if the essence of the Father were divided; as all other things partitioned and divided are not the same after as before they were divided (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01289.htm)


It was described by Justin Martyr more like a fire that is "spreading" and becoming more encompassing, and drawing in more individuals.

No it wasn't. Justin admits the example was not perfect, saying that he used one fire starting another fire merely as an example of Jesus' power not merely being a portion of God's power, but "remains the same" power.


I suppose the correct way to word it is that fire is singular and the flames spread and become more as more fuel is pulled in, thus the glory of God continues to increase into eternity.

That was not what Justin was talking about.


Justin Martyr placed the genesis of the "Logos" as a voluntary act of the Father before the beginning of creation.

"Before anything was created". He was begotten, not created. Everything was created after the genesis of the logos. Yet the Logos always existed in God. Jesus is the Wisdom of God. Was there ever a time where God lacked wisdom? Where He lacked the Word?


This is fine from an LDS perspective as long as you understand that this is not meant to imply creation from nothing. The "flames" spread to a unique and uncreated intelligence which had perfect characteristics from eternity.

If it had perfection ALREADY, it did not need the original flame.


Jesus Christ became the Firstbegotten in spirit and was "naturally" Deity (which gave Him the birthright to become the Firstbegotten in physical immortality as well). This concept fits Scripture.

No it doesn't. It also makes a mockery of what Justin was saying.


How do Trinitarians get around the teaching of Jesus being created/begotten?

We do not believe He was created. He was begotten in eternity, meaning He has always existed as God's Wisdom. And He is all God, not just part of His power.


That would be problematic because, from the Ex Nihilo perspective, that would imply that Jesus is not an eternal being.

Only if you persist in the strawman that we believe Jesus was created, not begotten.


So, those making the creeds invented the phrase "eternally begotten", as if the Son must be continuously sustained and issued forth from the Father.

Which He is. He is the Wisdom of God. God did not ever NOT possess Wisdom, nor did He lose it when He generated the Son.


I find that phrase problematic because, "in Christ all the fullness of Deity dwells bodily". (Col 2:9)

How can the "fullness of Deity" be found withing Jesus Christ himself, if he has to be "eternally begotten"?

Same way the fullness of flame can be found in a lit fire. This isn't like Sisyphus, who has to start over from scratch every day.


To the contrary, according to my view, in the Godhead, there is a "oneness" that exists among 3 beings, each of whom are fully "Deity", because, for example, the fire spread to another eternal being, who now has this fullness of Deity as a result. However, keep in mind that they are not "separate" in the complete sense, because they also hold a deep interpersonal relationship.

Yet each was lit by someone else at a different time, hence "forming another god after the one formed before it".



Now, IF they were not each considered fully Deity individually, it could not be said of Jesus that he has "the fulness of Deity" as the scriptures claim, because according to your view, the fulness of Deity must include all 3 as one being. In other words, Trinitarians (and Modalists) contradict the scriptures because they force themselves into a position whereby the fullness of Deity must be referring to all three together as an immutable, incomprehensible and omnipresent essence - Logically this means that the fulness of Deity cannot exist within Jesus bodily.

This sort of argument was what Justin was arguing against when he said "but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided; as all other things partitioned and divided are not the same after as before they were divided"


And finally, the LDS faith simply defines "oneness" differently than you do, as we use "oneness" in the same way as it is used in the Bible.

No you don't. You select only ONE use in scripture which was describing the unity Jesus had while on earth with the Father, one of intimate communion, while ignoring the rest of the uses of "oneness" in relation to the physical number of Gods in existence.


We do not take the idea of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being "one" to the literal extreme that Trinitarians and Modalists do. We understand that being "one" refers to that harmony and "perichoresis" of the those within that deep interpersonal relationship whereby their spirits hold a constant communication and singular will.

Which is only HALF of the story. You must also take their oneness to mean that numerically, there is only one God in existence, and that there was never a god before or one after Him. the Hebrew word bad means absolute numeric one

"You are the God, You alone [bad], of all the kingdoms of the earth." 2 Kings 19:15
"You alone [bad] are Yahweh." Nehemiah 9:6
"You alone [bad], Yahweh, are God." Isaiah 37:20

Cow Poke
05-01-2014, 09:21 AM
No they didn't "get it". Nick certainly didn't. RBerman didn't. 37813 didn't. Nor did Sparko or Cow Poke. And we have no problem accepting the "implications" of God not doing what WE think is better.

:thumb:

Cow Poke
05-01-2014, 09:24 AM
I have not visited one anti-mormon site in years.

There is no need. Mormon history and Mormon websites are testimonies against Mormonism. LONG AGO, I decided it was futile to try to use "anti-Mormon" websites or sources -- MUCH better to use LDS.org or FairMormon.org or actual Mormon spokespersons.

Obviously, however, when we use a Mormon source, it suddenly becomes "not official". :shrug:

Sparko
05-01-2014, 09:39 AM
There is no need. Mormon history and Mormon websites are testimonies against Mormonism. LONG AGO, I decided it was futile to try to use "anti-Mormon" websites or sources -- MUCH better to use LDS.org or FairMormon.org or actual Mormon spokespersons.

Obviously, however, when we use a Mormon source, it suddenly becomes "not official". :shrug:

exactly. I usually go to LDS.org to find what they teach. And even if I do read something claimed by someone who is "anti-mormon" I will go to the LDS official sites to double check it myself, and will give links and cites to the LDS sources.

Which as you point out, all of a sudden become "non-official"

And boy do they love to throw Brigham Young under the bus!

Cow Poke
05-01-2014, 10:00 AM
exactly. I usually go to LDS.org to find what they teach. And even if I do read something claimed by someone who is "anti-mormon" I will go to the LDS official sites to double check it myself, and will give links and cites to the LDS sources.

Which as you point out, all of a sudden become "non-official"

And boy do they love to throw Brigham Young under the bus!

It's always the same argument --- "well, Smith wasn't PERFECT", as if we thought he WAS, then they begin throwing the REAL prophets under the bus. :doh:

we KNOW Smith was not perfect. He was a POSTER BOY for how NOT to be an Ambassador for Christ.

Bill the Cat
05-01-2014, 11:32 AM
7UP: God the Father IS God/Deity. Jesus Christ IS God/Deity. It is quite difficult to "differentiate" between them because they act as "one".

Because they are one. They both share the nature of God.



LDS scripture says that there is one God. For example, when Christ says in Doctrine and Covenants: "I am the true light ... I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one." (D&C 93:2-3)

This doesn't say specifically that there is one God. In fact, it doesn't address the numerical count of gods at all. It is referring to another subject. Try again.


The question is: In what sense are they "one"? Oneness of God can be found in scripture in the following ways:

(1) There is only one perfectly united, mutually indwelling, divine community. We call that community "God" and there is only one such community.

This is getting kind of close. But it needs to be stipulated that the community is closed to new members, and the 3 members in it have always been in it.


(2) There is only one God who is our Father or the fount of divinity (ie "the Most High God).

More like the eternal source of the divinity.



(3) There is only one divine nature or set of properties severally necessary and jointly sufficient for divinity.

Which is inherent only to God. No other can possess them. Ever.


(4) When compared to the false gods of other nations, there was only one Lord/Saviour who could provide redemption/salvation

So, that would also mean that the others in the "community" were incapable of providing it



All of them are "sons of God" in the spiritual sense.

Then to every one of them, He can say that they are His sons, and that makes a mess of this entire chapter.


However, as the First born spirit and the chosen/anointed one, Jesus was to be the ONLY Begotten son according to the flesh.

No. He is the only begotten son, period. 1 John 4:9 says "9 By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him." Notice it says He SENT His ONLY BEGOTTEN INTO the world, meaning that Jesus was the only begotten BEFORE coming here. Additionally, in John 3:13 Jesus says to Nicodemus, “No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven–the Son of Man. This means that no one CAME from heaven except Him.


The wording is consistent with LDS doctrine.

Only superficially.


Jesus was the Firstbegotten in spirit and,

No, He was the ONLY begotten in spirit.


as the anointed Savior and Only begotten in the flesh, he was given power to become the Firstbegotten in the resurrection.

[quote] “Jesus Christ is the heir of this Kingdom—the Only Begotten of the Father according to the flesh, and holds the keys over all this world” (Smith, Teachings, 323 - emphasis added).

I'll trust Jesus over Joseph Smith's lies any day.


Heb 1
9You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.



Yes, and it refers to Jesus Christ, who is Deity.

It was to prove Jesus is the King of Israel. That's it.


It is entirely proper to say that the God of Jesus Christ is God the Father.

But not to use it outside the intent of the writer of Hebrews, who was explaining to the angel-worshipping Jews of the time that Jesus was not an angel. He was above them as God, even while He was here and "emptied", or having been made lower than them through mortality. Nowhere does it claim they are Jesus' "fellows"


Also, as a side note, IF God and Jesus were the same Being, and IF God the Father were literally omnipresent, then Jesus would not have to "ascend" to Heaven in order to be in the presence of the Father.

:duh: Not even dignifying that stupidity with a response...


7UP: You see here that God (the God of Jesus) chose and anointed Jesus from among his "companions" (sometimes translated "fellows")

Which is a prophetic fulfillment from Moses:

Deuteronomy 18
A New Prophet like Moses

15 “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen—
16 just as you desired of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God or see this great fire any more, lest I die.’
17 And the Lord said to me, ‘They are right in what they have spoken.
18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.
19 And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him.





The writer of Hebrews is EQUATING angels and humans, just like Latter Day Saints do.

No he is not. He is telling the Jews, who were hyper-reverencing angels (as obvious from Justin's Dialogue with Trypho), that they needed to be worshipping their King, because even the angels do.


Humans and angels are the same people, as we are all spiritual sons of God.

http://i482.photobucket.com/albums/rr183/DennisCooper/Funny%20Pictures/SurveySaysX.jpg


Jesus was the Only Begotten according to the flesh, but there were other "sons of God" according to the spirit.

Only via God's ex nihilo creation of them. And they were not pre-humans, as God's retort to Job so eloquently explains.


Hebrews 1 is speaking of the angels in comparison to the "firstbegotten":

No, it is speaking of worshipping angels in comparison to their rightful God and King.


Heb 1
4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

You are right that Psalms is referring to humanity, but it is clear from the context that Hebrews is referring to the other sons of God (i.e. angels).

No it isn't. It is showing the Jews that Jesus is the fulfillment of their scriptures for who their rightful King was to be, which then gives way to Jesus being their rightful High Priest, which gives rise to why HIS priesthood, as King and Priest, is better than the Levitical priesthood.


This is because humanity and the sons of God are the same and Jesus was chosen from among these fellow beings, due to His superiority.

Wrong. God told Job the exact opposite.



He was only 'made lower than the angels' in the sense that His glory was veiled. At the mount of transfiguration, apostles saw the glory of Christ which was the true reality. Jesus still had command over his "fellows" (the angels) even in mortality.

Sorry, but you are trying to apply the Deuteronomy prophecy to angels. You are wrong. His "fellows" were the Jews, over whom He was to rule as King and High Priest.



Here is a scripture referring to Jesus Christ, who was Jehovah in the Old Testament:
"He blessed Joseph, and said, 'The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, The God who has been my shepherd all my life to this day, The angel who has redeemed me from all evil,'" (Genesis 48:15-16 - emphasis added)

We also know that "morning star" and "son of the morning" are angelic titles.

Sorry, but the Hebrew word "malak" is not a description of a species, it is a description of a function that one serves in to take a message from one person to another.



As I showed above, the context of Hebrews 1 is speaking of angels,

Only in that the Jews were worshipping them instead of their rightful King.


and how Jesus was chosen/anointed from among his "fellows".

In fulfillment of Moses' decree from God that His "fellows" were the Jews.


Christ's foreordination occurred from BEFORE the foundation of the world. (1 Peter 1:20) , before Adam had even been created and before anybody became human/mortal.

Correct. Which is why He was to be worshipped, and not the angels He commands.




Your complaint against the concept of "organizing" in creation simply stems from your Ex Nihilo mindset.

Of course it does. And you've yet to prove that it is wrong.


Your understanding of creation does not match the way it is used in the Bible.

Yes it does.


I addressed that in my New Testament presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XFST2-vfIY



Let's look at your video, shall we?

1) You start with a genetic fallacy, which you waste several slides on in relation to pas trying to disprove the meaning of "all". Bill Clinton would be proud of you.


Thayers Greek-English Lexicon lists the following meanings and usages of the word:

2. Without a substantive

a. Masculine and feminine every one, any one, in the singular without addition

(6) Panta, in an absolute sense, all things that exist, all created things (as used in Eph 3:9 and 1 Peter 4:7)



The other instances show your reliance on Strongs and your inability to read Greek.

2) You harken back to your creation video where you mistakenly equate 'bara "create" in the Qal form to 'bara "cutting out" in the Piel form.

3) You mistakenly assume that there are things outside of heaven and earth (or the known universe as you call it) that are not God Himself. You also mistakenly assume that Paul means space only when he mentions "heaven" with no warrant for this assumption outside your own unproven thesis. That is circular reasoning. In fact, that is the second heaven according to the Jews. The third heaven is not in our known universe, but is in the spiritual realm outside of our universe. God created that too.

4) You then take Hebrews 11:3, which literally translates: by faith we understand the ages to have been prepared by a saying of God, in regard to the things seen not having come out of things appearing Young's Literal Translation and try to make it fit your ex materia preconceptions. Paul simply meant that the universe, and time itself, was prepared by God through Christ, and that it was not made of the things they could see right then. That would mean that matter itself was not eternal, again something the Hebrews were also mistakenly believing.

5) You then mistakenly equate those things that were seen by the Hebrews as the writer of Hebrews saying that "things unseen" were eternal, and what made up the things seen. By that, I mean you make a leap in stating that by the writer's refuting eternal matter, he means there was some pre-existing eternal substance that was used to make what was seen. The text does not say that, nor does the grammar support it. It only says that the things they could see were not made from the things they could see. It does not say at all what they were actually made of, nor HOW they were made.

seven7up
05-01-2014, 08:25 PM
Heb 1
4having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

7UP: How did Jesus obtain the name and title of God? He "obtained" it by INHERITANCE, by being elevated from among the other sons of God to a higher position! Please note that Hebrews chapter 1 teaches that Jesus was "chosen/anointed" and that Jesus "obtained" the "more excellent name". However, it is clearly well deserved. As the only perfect spirit, Christ had no flaws and therefore could unite His will perfectly with God's, thus he "became better than the angels" becoming "one" with God and thus deserving the name of God.



The "Name" that was given was "Jesus", the name by which we are saved.

When a father passes on something as an "inheritance", it means that the father possesses the very thing that he is passing on.


Jesus is not an angel, nor are the angels similar to Him.

Amongst the sons of God ("sons of the morning" / "morning stars"), Jesus was entirely unique. He was Deity by his very nature, while the other sons of God were not.


Jesus was NEVER considered the same species as angels in the NT or by the Apostles. He may have shared their function as a messenger of the Father, but He was never considered the same as them. He was God and man.

There were many "sons of God" / "sons of the morning" / "morning stars" ; there were many spirits who were foreordained before the foundation of the world; and Jesus is the "Firstbegotten" among them, which is the term which designates Him as the principle heir of the Kingdom among those sons of God, who has made it so that we may be "joint heirs" with Him.



7UP: How does one "inherit" that which was already his? In the Trinity, the same Being is appointing itself, sending itself, and inheriting from itself.


Again, bastardizing the Trinity doctrine.

Please explain how you think what I said above does not correspond to Trinity doctrine. The Father and Son, in the "Trinity" are the same Being/substance.


The Son is never called the Father (with the exception of the unnecessarily vague translation in Isaiah).

You are referring to Isaiah 5:9, which reads: "For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace."

However, I was thinking more of titles like "Lord/Adonai", "God", "Theos" , "Holy One" , "Eheyeh/I become" , "Maker/Creator" , etc.



7UP: The names and titles which are applicable to our Heavenly Father became applicable to the Son.


They never weren't.

How does he "inherit" names from the Father, if the name were always applicable. From the LDS perspective, Jesus was appointed to gain these titles before the creation of the physical Universe.


So, are you claiming that Jesus was forever God, and that his "fire" was not lit at some point in the distant past by the Father's? Maybe there is hope for you yet...

I am claiming that the eternal intelligence of Christ was perfect by nature, therefore, unlike the rest of us, was Deity by nature. The Father recognized this before the creation of the physical universe and "chose/anointed" Jesus from among the other sons of God to be the heir of the Kingdom. And that is how Christ was given authority over creation and the sons of God (angels). I repeat, the authority was given to Jesus Christ and these things became subject to Him and this endowment of authority was something that was determined by the Father.

-7up

seven7up
05-02-2014, 12:48 AM
7UP: Why do you think that talking to God or having the golden plates would automatically impart to Joseph all aspects of theological knowledge all at once? ... Are you asking whether or not Joseph Smith received from God every concept (related to the nature of the Godhead) all at once at the very beginning?


It's disappointing that you maintain this DISHONEST approach -- please show me where I have made such a claim. NOBODY HERE is claiming that Smith had "all aspects of theological knowledge all at once"?

You were complaining that the Lectures on Faith did not represent God the Father as having a body of flesh and bone.

That is a specific theological concept concerning the nature of the embodiment of a specific member of the Godhead.

the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fullness. The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man—or rather, man was formed after his likeness and in his image. He is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father, possessing all the fullness of the Father, or the same fullness with the Father, being begotten of him;

You wrote:

Note that God the Father was a SPIRIT, not a man with flesh and bones.

Yes, but the Father was anthropomorphic. This also shows two distinct and separate members of the Godhead, each of whom is embodied. I explained:

7UP: Sidney Rigdon wrote most of the Lectures on Faith. We see here that he understood God the Father as being the same way that Jesus was described in the Book of Mormon, as an embodied spirit with hands, eyes, head, etc. Why didn't Joseph correct the "personage of spirit" phrasing? Because Joseph Smith didn't know that yet. Why would he? It is not like he had an opportunity to touch God the Father's physical body. That detail had to be revealed specifically to Joseph.

As I said, the Lectures on Faith do not teach Trinitarianism or Modalism. Teachings all the way back to the Book of Mormon teach that we are LITERALLY created in the image and likeness of God and that there was a separation between the Father and Son. That is not found in any Trinitarian creed, therefore, you cannot make the claim that LDS meant the same thing in the early church if they said "Trinity".




Here's what Mormons claim NOW:

DO MORMONS BELIEVE IN THE TRINITY?
Mormons most commonly use the term “Godhead” to refer to the Trinity. The first article of faith for the Latter-day Saints reads: “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.” Latter-day Saints believe God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are one in will and purpose but are not literally the same being or substance, as conceptions of the Holy Trinity commonly imply.

That is correct. We usually use the term "Godhead" because there are too many conceptions of the Trinity which imply that they are literally the "same being" or the "same substance". So, it DOES depends entirely what is meant by "Trinity". The LDS (the English speaking) mostly avoid the use of that term because of what is implied by that word as defined by the creeds.

Nevertheless, earlier on this thread, I explained that the LDS view is closest to the view of "Social Trinitarianism". I named the title of this thread "Mormon Trinity". Just look at any Spanish translation of LDS literature. They say, "Trinidad". We understand the Father , Son and Holy Spirit to have "Three centers of consciousness", although they have a special spiritual communication between the members of the Godhead which unites them. Where we LDS part ways from the Social Trinitarian view, is that the members of the Trinity in that view are claimed to have a "single essence". There is no scriptural support for such a claim. I already demonstrated that the Bible says that Jesus is the "image/copy" of the Father's substance. It does NOT say that they are a "single" substance or that they are the "same" essence.

Keep in mind that LDS do not argue that Christ is a mere reflection of the Father. Look closely at the original Greek, which indicates an "exact copy". The root word of provides imagery of a "carved" or "stamped out" reproduction of the original. The LDS view fits perfectly with that idea. The "fullness of Deity" dwells within Christ "bodily". A reflection would not be the "fullness of Deity".



Here is what they USED to claim:

Source: The Evening And Morning Star, Vol. I, INDEPENDENCE, MO. JULY, 1832. No. 2. page 12
the eternal purposes and decrees of God, THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, the incarnation of the Son of God, and the manner of the operation of the Spirit of God upon the souls of men,

The Doctrine of the Trinity obviously was not the "single substance" concept. And it certainly did not envision God the Father as omnipresent essence.

-The Book of Mormon discusses a physical separation and embodiment (shape, position and form) of members of the Godhead (See: 3 Nephi 11:, 1 Nephi 11:1-11, Ether 3:14-18.)

In 1830, Joseph explained the meaning of Genesis 1:26 as:

And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and it was so....And I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I them. (Moses 2:26-27.)

Again, "in mine own image" to refer to a physical likeness and/or appearance, rather than some kind of a moral or intellectual similarities.

The explanation of Genesis 5:1-2 reads: In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; in the image of his own body, male and female, created he them (Moses 6:8-9; emphasis added).

- "the different denominations are very much opposed to us.... The Methodists also come, and they rage, for they worship a God without body or parts, and they know that our faith comes in contact with this principle." (Lucy Mack Smith - 1830)

- "The Prophet Joseph said: 'Brethren, now you are prepared to be the apostles of Jesus Christ, for you have seen both the Father and the Son and know that They exist and that They are two separate personages.' (Joseph Smith 1832-33)

How about a non-Mormon witness:

- [The Mormons] contend that the God worshipped by the Presbyterians and all other sectarians is no better than a wooden god. They believe that the true God is a material being, composed of body and parts; and that when the Creator formed Adam in his own image, he made him about the size and shape of God himself. (Truman Coe, a Presbyterian minister, who lived in Kirtland for four years (1832–1836).

-7up

seven7up
05-02-2014, 01:38 AM
God is quite clear that he is the ONLY God.
Deuteronomy 4:35
You were shown these things so that you might know that the Lord is God; besides him there is no other.
Isaiah 44:6 “This is what the Lord says—
Israel’s King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty:
I am the first and I am the last;
apart from me there is no God.
7 Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it.
Let him declare and lay out before me
what has happened since I established my ancient people,
and what is yet to come—
yes, let them foretell what will come.
8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid.
Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago?
You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me?
No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.”
Isaiah 46:9
Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me.

So there is only one God, there were none before him, and will be none after him. And there is none like him.
Either the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God, one diety, or if the LDS idea that Jesus is Jehovah in the OT is right, then Jesus is the only God and the Father is not God at all.

Once again the LDS shoot themselves in the foot with their own doctrines.

We don't shoot ourselves in the foot. We simply pay attention to CONTEXT, both textual and historical. Those verses fall under category 4 in this list:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---
In what sense are they "one"? Oneness of God can be found in scripture in the following ways:

(1) There is only one perfectly united, mutually indwelling, divine community. We call that community "God" and there is only one such community.
(2) There is only one God who is our Father or the fount of divinity (ie "the Most High God).
(3) There is only one divine nature or set of properties severally necessary and jointly sufficient for divinity.
(4) When compared to the false gods of other nations, there was only one Lord/Saviour who could provide redemption/salvation
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---

The phrases of "none beside me" and "there is no other" were Hebrew figurative speech speaking of superiority.* Not to mention the context of comparing Jehovah to false idols which held no true power, but were mere statues created by the hands of men.

As I said, the scholarly view is that “none beside me…” is figurative speech which means “I am the best” or “I am superior”. Here is another quote from Isaiah:

Isa 47:8 & 10
Therefore hear now this, thou that art given to pleasures, that dwellest carelessly, that sayest in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me; I shall not sit as a widow, neither shall I know the loss of children:
For thou hast trusted in thy wickedness: thou hast said, None seeth me. Thy wisdom and thy knowledge, it hath perverted thee; and thou hast said in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me.

When Isaiah writes “there is none beside me” in regard to how God feels about his superiority above all other gods, and then Isaiah writes “there is none beside me” in regard to how the Babylonians felt they were superior to the other nations. The phrase means the same thing in each case. The idiom means the same thing, even if in one instance it is a true statement (God’s) and in the second instance it is not a true statement (Babylon). Neither one is actually meant to deny the literal existence of other "gods" or other "cities". In fact, the Bible refers to "gods" in several ways A) the True God (Godhead or members within) B) angels C) men who have been given authority by god D) false idols . The only option here that doesn't actually exist is option D.

The LDS view fits far better with the whole of scripture, as opposed to these isolated verses which have historically been misused and ignore the original meaning of these Hebrew phrases. You find this kind of speech in modern language as well, like a husband saying to his wife "I only have eyes for you." Remember that song, "I only have eyes for you ; You're the only one." (The Flamingos sang that I think). Would you interpret that to mean that the husband couldn't actually see anything else with his eyes, and nobody else existed at all?

Also, consider the context. Can you imagine Christ standing at the right hand of God the Father and saying "There is no God beside me"? Of course not. The context is entirely different . How about this verse:

1 Timothy 2:5 ” For there is one God, AND one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

Here we have one God (the Father) AND a mediator (Christ) between God and men. There are TWO divine people being described in this sentence. It falls under category 2 in my list above. So does this one:

1 Corinthians 8:4-6 ” (there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom all things, and we in him; AND one Lord Jesus Christ

The "one God" in both of this is referring to the Father ONLY. Then Jesus is referred to separated with the titles of Lord and Mediator. So, we have 1) God the Father AND 2) Jesus Christ , and any other gods that may exist are of no importance to us.

John 17:3 ” And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, AND Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Again, there is God AND Jesus Christ.* Who sent who? Who is in charge? Who is the "Most High God"?**

The Father sent the Son. The Father is in charge. The Father is the "Most High". Jesus Christ is fully divine, however, he was and is subordinate to God the Father. God "chose" and "anointed" Jesus to be the Savior and God "sent" Jesus, as described in Hebrews Chapter 1.* The authority and glory that Jesus had before the world existed was "given" to him by God the Father.

Jesus said, "In my Father's house are many mansions..."

Who's house is it?

Col 2:9 fits under category 3.

Do you want one that falls under category 1? How about this: And God said, 'Let us create man in our image..."


Here is one to consider:
John 20:17 - Jesus saith unto her, "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father"

If Jesus and the Father are an inseparable and literal and metaphysical "one", or if God were literally omnipresent, why would Jesus need to go or ascend anywhere in order to be with the Father.

Furthermore, I have demonstrated how Biblical references concerning multiple persons being "one" is figurative. You try to make an exception so that the text will fit your theology, when your theology is supposed to fit the text... Not just these isolated verses ignoring the Hebrew meaning of language, but it must fit the whole of scripture.

LDS theology fits better than yours, because we don't have a word or a phrase meaning one thing everywhere in scripture, but then make exceptions just in certain cases when you want it to fit your preconceived notions.

-7up

seven7up
05-02-2014, 01:50 AM
The problem is not Smith claiming to be boasting, but WHAT he is boasting. He is boasting that he is greater than Jesus ...

That is pure arrogance, and a lie.


I have read Joseph Smith's writings for years. All of them.

It is YOU who missed the point. Joseph was purposefully speaking "in folly" and boasting "foolishness".

Only a deceiver, who totally misrepresents a single quote of boasting out of context, like you attempted to do, would pretend that Joseph Smith was actually teaching that he was better than Jesus Christ. That ignores and goes against everything else that Joseph Smith taught about himself and about the perfect and sinless Son of God.

I can provide a list of quotes proving that point, if you would like, (and I will if you press the issue) but we both know that your attempted deception failed here.


-7up

seven7up
05-02-2014, 02:38 AM
7UP: Certainly you have in mind the phrase Joseph Smith said about the Book of Mormon being "the most correct of any book on earth". Of course, anti-mormons often take that phrase out of context, and purposefully miss the point that Joseph was making. Being "correct" was not referring to punctuation, spelling, grammar, or even deep doctrine. Joseph said: “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” His point was about Christ-like living and drawing closer to God in a personal relationship. Anti-Mormons purposefully ignore that part and pretend that Joseph meant something entirely different.


The most perfect book ever written is full of flaws?

It is not "full of flaws". Not in the sense that you are implying and not in the sense that Joseph meant. You are just another critic, who ignores the actual intent and meaning of what was being said.


Yet when God gave them words to speak to the people or to write down, they wrote them down exactly as God wanted. No mistakes.

By the way, please save your misconceptions about the Book of Mormon for another thread. We are talking about the Trinity here.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


7UP: He had to understand it in order to relay the doctrines to other people. I explained an example to Cow Poke. Joseph understood from the First Vision and the translated plates that we truly are created in the image of God (likeness and image). However, there was not anything in his experience or in the translation which would have clarified the idea that God the Father was not only a Spirit. It took a specific revelation to reveal that the Father, like Jesus, is a Spirit that dwells within flesh and bone. As Paul describes it, "a spiritual body" which Christ demonstrated in the resurrection to be tangible.


Surely God could tell him the things he needed to understand? Surely Smith could have at least repeated what God wanted him to say?

He did. However, that specific detail about the nature of God the Father's embodiment was not given to Joseph from the beginning. They were under the impression that the "spirit body" of God the Father was not tangible (not flesh and bone). They had no reason to believe otherwise at that point. It would require a specific revelation in order to clarify that. This particular detail was given later, and recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants.

-7up

Cow Poke
05-02-2014, 04:56 AM
[I]7UP: Why do you think that talking to God or having the golden plates would automatically impart to Joseph all aspects of theological knowledge all at once?

Why do you keep repeating this LIE? You have been told NUMEROUS times that's not what I believe. It is dishonest to continue that goofy assertion.


You were complaining that the Lectures on Faith did not represent God the Father as having a body of flesh and bone.

No, I wasn't. I was pointing out that PRIOR to 1835, according to Mormon records and publications, Mormonism taught the TRINITY --- God in three persons.

Cow Poke
05-02-2014, 05:17 AM
Seven,

First, I apologize for implying you "lied", but that's the feeling I get when you just keep repeating the same thing, even after being told that's NOT what we think...


7UP: Why do you think that talking to God or having the golden plates would automatically impart to Joseph all aspects of theological knowledge all at once? ...

[I]7UP: Why do you think that talking to God or having the golden plates would automatically impart to Joseph all aspects of theological knowledge all at once?

That just makes you look like a kool-aid drinking script reader. "if they say X, respond with Y".

It's disingenuous at best, and dishonest at worst.

PLEASE respond to what we actually SAY and BELIEVE, not your "talking points" responses.

OK?

Is that too hard?

Sparko
05-02-2014, 05:59 AM
We don't shoot ourselves in the foot. We simply pay attention to CONTEXT, both textual and historical. Those verses fall under category 4 in this list:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---
In what sense are they "one"? Oneness of God can be found in scripture in the following ways:

(1) There is only one perfectly united, mutually indwelling, divine community. We call that community "God" and there is only one such community.
(2) There is only one God who is our Father or the fount of divinity (ie "the Most High God).
(3) There is only one divine nature or set of properties severally necessary and jointly sufficient for divinity.
(4) When compared to the false gods of other nations, there was only one Lord/Saviour who could provide redemption/salvation

:lmbo:

Really? a "community?" - Then you are calling YHWH a liar, because he said there was no God formed before him, nor after him. HE ("I" - note the singular, not "we") is the only God. If Jesus was once a man who "joined the community" then the community existed BEFORE he was God. Yet he specifically says that is not the case.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---


The phrases of "none beside me" and "there is no other" were Hebrew figurative speech speaking of superiority.* Not to mention the context of comparing Jehovah to false idols which held no true power, but were mere statues created by the hands of men.

Again: :rofl:

I love how you like to take things literally that are obviously figurative in order to support your LDS doctrines, yet when something is clearly literal, but it disproves your doctrine, all of a sudden, and for no reason and with no support, it becomes "figurative"

This is not a figure of speech, 7up. It is exactly what it says. Yes, it means that there is no peer to the person, but that is exactly what it means literally too. God has no peer! No one, nothing is God besides him! There is only ONE God. Not a "community of Gods"




When Isaiah writes “there is none beside me” in regard to how God feels about his superiority above all other gods, and then Isaiah writes “there is none beside me” in regard to how the Babylonians felt they were superior to the other nations. The phrase means the same thing in each case. The idiom means the same thing, even if in one instance it is a true statement (God’s) and in the second instance it is not a true statement (Babylon). Neither one is actually meant to deny the literal existence of other "gods" or other "cities". In fact, the Bible refers to "gods" in several ways A) the True God (Godhead or members within) B) angels C) men who have been given authority by god D) false idols . The only option here that doesn't actually exist is option D.

The word Elohim which is translated "God" can mean "God" or "Judge" - it is the context that matters. In the case where YHWH is teaching that there are no other Gods, he is speaking of Elohim as "God" - not "Angel" or "Judge" - if he were speaking of those other meanings then he would have been outright LYING by saying there were no Gods formed before him, nor will there be any formed after him. That he alone is God.

You get that right?


The LDS view fits far better with the whole of scripture, as opposed to these isolated verses which have historically been misused and ignore the original meaning of these Hebrew phrases. You find this kind of speech in modern language as well, like a husband saying to his wife "I only have eyes for you." Remember that song, "I only have eyes for you ; You're the only one." (The Flamingos sang that I think). Would you interpret that to mean that the husband couldn't actually see anything else with his eyes, and nobody else existed at all?

Isolated verses? LOL. Please 7up, don't try that crap on us. The bible is FULL of God telling mankind he is the creator, and God and that there is only him and no other God. If you were to chop out all those verses you would end up with a bible half the size it is now. Which is why I am guessing the LDS had to add their own "bible" and even then, Smith had to attempt to rewrite the bible we already have.




Also, consider the context. Can you imagine Christ standing at the right hand of God the Father and saying "There is no God beside me"? Of course not. The context is entirely different . How about this verse:

1 Timothy 2:5 ” For there is one God, AND one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

Here we have one God (the Father) AND a mediator (Christ) between God and men. There are TWO divine people being described in this sentence. It falls under category 2 in my list above. So does this one:

1 Corinthians 8:4-6 ” (there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom all things, and we in him; AND one Lord Jesus Christ

The "one God" in both of this is referring to the Father ONLY. Then Jesus is referred to separated with the titles of Lord and Mediator. So, we have 1) God the Father AND 2) Jesus Christ , and any other gods that may exist are of no importance to us.


Yes I can imagine the Father with Jesus beside him. They are one God revealed as two persons. Your lack of the understanding of the trinity is the problem here.


John 17:3 ” And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, AND Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Again, there is God AND Jesus Christ.* Who sent who? Who is in charge? Who is the "Most High God"?**

The Father sent the Son. The Father is in charge. The Father is the "Most High". Jesus Christ is fully divine, however, he was and is subordinate to God the Father. God "chose" and "anointed" Jesus to be the Savior and God "sent" Jesus, as described in Hebrews Chapter 1.* The authority and glory that Jesus had before the world existed was "given" to him by God the Father.

Foot, shot.

If Jesus is YHWH and the creator (Genesis, John) then the Father did nothing. He is no "most high God" - he didn't do squat. He is no God at all. Yet the bible says he is God. It also says Jesus is God. And the Holy Spirit is God. Yet only one God: YHWH.




Jesus said, "In my Father's house are many mansions..."

Who's house is it?

Well if Jesus is YHWH and the Father is not, as the LDS teach, then it must be Jesus' house huh? :wink:



Col 2:9 fits under category 3.

Do you want one that falls under category 1? How about this: And God said, 'Let us create man in our image..."

You realize that Elohim is a plural word. But that plurality doesn't extend to number of beings. It is like Sheep. The "we" used in Genesis is there because of grammar, not because of number of Gods. sheesh.




Here is one to consider:
John 20:17 - Jesus saith unto her, "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father"

If Jesus and the Father are an inseparable and literal and metaphysical "one", or if God were literally omnipresent, why would Jesus need to go or ascend anywhere in order to be with the Father.
Again, you don't understand the trinity at all. At least try to understand what we believe before burning down a straw man. TWO persons, one divine nature: God. Also Jesus took on a second nature: Humanity. That is why it says in places "the man Jesus" - and in this case it is talking about Jesus in his resurrection body. He still has two natures. He is a different person from the Father, yet shares the same divine nature with him.




LDS theology fits better than yours, because we don't have a word or a phrase meaning one thing everywhere in scripture, but then make exceptions just in certain cases when you want it to fit your preconceived notions.

Bull crap. That is exactly what you do. And have done throughout your post!

Sparko
05-02-2014, 06:06 AM
I have read Joseph Smith's writings for years. All of them.

It is YOU who missed the point. Joseph was purposefully speaking "in folly" and boasting "foolishness".

Only a deceiver, who totally misrepresents a single quote of boasting out of context, like you attempted to do, would pretend that Joseph Smith was actually teaching that he was better than Jesus Christ. That ignores and goes against everything else that Joseph Smith taught about himself and about the perfect and sinless Son of God.

I can provide a list of quotes proving that point, if you would like, (and I will if you press the issue) but we both know that your attempted deception failed here.


-7up

He taught he was greater than Paul and Jesus. It is clear by the context. It was no idle boast. He meant it. You can plug your ears and go "la.la.la. I can't hear you" all day long, but anyone reading his words can see exactly what Smith said. He was angry at those who were against him, and bragged about how nobody could drag him down because he was greater than Paul or Jesus at keeping the church together. His speech was petty, boastful, and arrogant.

Here it is, let the context speak for itself:
-------------
History of the Church, Vol. 6, pp. 408-409
Address of the Prophet - His Testimony Against the Dissenters at Nauvoo.

President Joseph Smith read the 11th Chap. II Corinthians. My object is to let you know that I am right here on the spot where I intend to stay. I, like Paul, have been in perils, and oftener than anyone in this generation. As Paul boasted, I have suffered more than Paul did. I should be like a fish out of water, if I were out of persecutions. Perhaps my brethren think it requires all this to keep me humble. The Lord has constituted me so curiously that I glory in persecution. I am not nearly so humble as if I were not persecuted. If oppression will make a wise man mad, much more a fool. If they want a beardless boy to whip all the world, I will get on the top of a mountain and crow like a rooster: I shall always beat them. When facts are proved, truth and innocence will prevail at last. My enemies are no philosophers: they think that when they have my spoke under, they will keep me down; but for the fools, I will hold on and fly over them.

God is in the still small voice. In all these affidavits, indictments, it is all of the devil--all corruption. Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on the top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet. You know my daily walk and conversation. I am in the bosom of a virtuous and good people. How I do love to hear the wolves howl! When they can get rid of me, the devil will also go. For the last three years I have a record of all my acts and proceedings, for I have kept several good, faithful, and efficient clerks in constant employ: they have accompanied me everywhere, and carefully kept my history, and they have written down what I have done, where I have been, and what I have said; therefore my enemies cannot charge me with any day, time, or place, but what I have written testimony to prove my actions; and my enemies cannot prove anything against me. They have got wonderful things in the land of Ham. I think the grand jury have strained at a gnat and swallowed the camel.

A man named Simpson says I made an affidavit against him, Mr. Simpson says I arrested him. I never arrested Mr. Simpson in my life. He says I made an affidavit against him. I never made an affidavit against him in my life. I will prove it in court. I will tell you how it was: Last winter I got ready with my children to go to the farm to kill hogs. Orrin P. Rockwell was going to drive. An Englishman came in and wanted a private conversation with me. I told him I did not want any private conversations. "I demand one of you! " Such a one I am bound to obey anyhow. Said he-"I want a warrant against the man who stabbed Brother Badham. He said it was a man who boarded at Davis'. He said it was Mr. Simpson-it answered his description. I said I had no jurisdiction out of the city. He said-"The man must be arrested, or else he will go away." I told him-"You must go to Squire Wells, Johnson, or Foster." Mr. Lytle stepped up and said-"I am a policeman." I jumped into my carriage, and away I went.

President Joseph Smith read the 11th Chap. II Corinthians. My object is to let you know that I am right here on the spot where I intend to stay. I, like Paul, have been in perils, and oftener than anyone in this generation. As Paul boasted, I have suffered more than Paul did. I should be like a fish out of water, if I were out of persecutions. Perhaps my brethren think it requires all this to keep me humble. The Lord has constituted me so curiously that I glory in persecution. I am not nearly so humble as if I were not persecuted. If oppression will make a wise man mad, much more a fool. If they want a beardless boy to whip all the world, I will get on the top of a mountain and crow like a rooster: I shall always beat them. When facts are proved, truth and innocence will prevail at last. My enemies are no philosophers: they think that when they have my spoke under, they will keep me down; but for the fools, I will hold on and fly over them.
----

Cow Poke
05-03-2014, 10:26 AM
We seem to be going WAY off topic here. (not that I'm surprised :smile:)

Mormon theology USED to teach the Trinity.
Now it does not.

Can we please stick with that, and create other threads for the peripheral issues?

Cow Poke
05-03-2014, 10:32 AM
For starters, let's not pretend that Christians have always represented the "Trinity" consistently. There is STILL debate amongst Christians concerning that doctrine.

Why does that matter? The whole concept of the Mormon Church was that ALL OTHER religions were apostate, and God was allegedly using Joseph Smith to set everything straight.


Second, I would say that LDS views are often considered similar to a version of the Trinity, one that has been called "Social Trinitarianism".

Not at the inception of Mormonism.


While I have McConkie's quotes open from the thread, let me pull a few more from him, because he supposedly represents "hard line" Mormonism.[/COLOR]

He wasn't around at the beginning. To see what Mormons taught about the Trinity in the BEGINNING, it would make much more sense to use contemporary written sources.


"Thus there are, in the Eternal Godhead, three persons–... These three are one — one God if you will – in purposes, in powers, and in perfections."

"Though each God in the Godhead is a personage, separate and distinct from each of the others, yet they are ‘one God’” [/COLOR]

He also says,

"First, be it remembered that most scriptures that speak of God or of the Lord do not even bother to distinguish the Father from the Son, simply because it doesn’t make any difference which God is involved. They are one. The words or deeds of either of them would be the words and deeds of the other in the same circumstance."

But keep in mind that he says "would be... in the same circumstance". However, they are not technically in the same circumstance. Members of the Godhead have different "roles". For example, God the Father is the Father of my spirit, and Jesus Christ is the Redeemer of my sins.

Explanations of the Godhead get tricky, because we say that there are "three". On the other hand, we say that they are "one". Well, in what sense are they three, and in what sense are they "one"?

When discussing their unity, you end up sounding like a modalist. When discussing their diversity, you end up sounding like a tritheist.

I think that one main difference between LDS and mainstream Christians is when it comes to terms like "BEING" and "SUBSTANCE".

Mormons do not believe that God the Father and Jesus Christ are the same being nor do we believe that they are the same substance. We instead would say that Jesus Christ is the image of the same Being/Substance.

Another way to look at it is this:

I know that this is impossible, but let's pretend for a moment that God the Father (and/or the Holy Spirit) were suddenly to drop out of existence tomorow. In that scenario, Jesus Christ would STILL be fully God. (i.e. the FULNESS of Deity would still exist in Christ.)

I am not sure if most Trinitarians would hold that position.


-7up

Regardless of what Mormons teach TODAY, or what McConkie said, the writings of the period before 1835 indicate a "God in three persons" view.

seven7up
05-03-2014, 12:51 PM
Regardless of what Mormons teach TODAY, or what McConkie said, the writings of the period before 1835 indicate a "God in three persons" view.

"God in three persons" is not even the same as the Trinity or Modalism. If “God” is defined as an eternally unchanging and indivisible essence, how can there be three "separate" persons who are called “God”?

In the Book of Mormon (1829), with the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus, we come to an understanding of Jesus which is NOT a "Trinity". I already discussed how the Brother of Jared had an experience (similar to Moses), which specifically describes that "image and likeness" refers to visual appearance or form. In 3 Nephi 17: 15, the resurrected Christ is said to pray to the Father in Heaven. Can you pray to your own spirit? Also, the resurrected Christ has “gone unto the Father” by ascending into heaven. “And it came to pass that after he had ascended into heaven the second time that he showed himself unto them, and had gone unto the Father.” IF “the Father” referred to here is the anthropomorphic spirit inside Jesus’ body which was shown to the Brother of Jared, why would Jesus have to ascend to heaven to be with His own spirit?

This is just like Matthew 27:46:

"And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, ... My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

If the Father and Son are the same substance, then how could he have forsaken himself?

In 3 Nephi 9:15 the resurrected Christ speaks to the Father in the third person and said He was with the Father in the beginning. “Behold, I am Jesus Christ the Son of God. I created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are. I was with the Father from the beginning." Then he uses the same language of figurative "oneness" that is found in John chapter 17.



Why does that matter? The whole concept of the Mormon Church was that ALL OTHER religions were apostate, and God was allegedly using Joseph Smith to set everything straight.

Joseph Smith DID set it straight. In reality, the only concept concerning the nature of the Father that Joseph did not have from the early years was that God the Father's embodiment was tangible (or possibly even resurrected). Otherwise, he was teaching correctly about two separate individuals, the Son of God at the right hand of the Father.

The Prophet Joseph said: 'Brethren, now you are prepared to be the apostles of Jesus Christ, for you have seen both the Father and the Son and know that They exist and that They are two separate personages.' - Zebedee Coltrin (1832-1833)

-7up

Bill the Cat
05-03-2014, 12:55 PM
We seem to be going WAY off topic here. (not that I'm surprised :smile:)

Mormon theology USED to teach the Trinity.
Now it does not.

Can we please stick with that, and create other threads for the peripheral issues?

Will do bro. :aye:

Cow Poke
05-03-2014, 12:59 PM
"God in three persons" is not even the same as the Trinity or Modalism. If “God” is defined as an eternally unchanging and indivisible essence, how can there be three "separate" persons who are called “God”?

The fact that you do not understand the Trinity does not prove that it was not taught in the early Mormon Church.


Joseph Smith DID set it straight.

No, not even close.


In reality, the only concept concerning the nature of the Father that Joseph did not have from the early years was that God the Father's embodiment was tangible (or possibly even resurrected). Otherwise, he was teaching correctly about two separate individuals, the Son of God at the right hand of the Father.

Which is DIFFERENT than what was taught prior to 1835. The fact that you can produce CONFLICTING teachings only underscores the confusion (or deception) Smith was fostering.


The Prophet Joseph said: 'Brethren, now you are prepared to be the apostles of Jesus Christ, for you have seen both the Father and the Son and know that They exist and that They are two separate personages.' - Zebedee Coltrin (1832-1833)

-7up

Yes, he couldn't keep his stories straight -- even though he had, allegedly, the "Urum and Thummum", the golden plates, and the power of translation, he couldn't keep it straight.

Cow Poke
05-03-2014, 12:59 PM
Will do bro. :aye:

On the other hand, it's 7up's thread! :shrug:

seven7up
05-03-2014, 01:15 PM
He taught he was greater than Paul and Jesus. It is clear by the context. It was no idle boast. He meant it.
----

This is simple Sparko.

No fair minded person, who has studied all of the teachings of Joseph Smith, will ever believe that Joseph actually thought he was greater than Jesus. It is contrary to everything that the prophet taught everywhere else. The context here was giving those people in the audience, who had violently attacked him and his family, something to chew on. In retaliation, Joseph did not attack them back in a violent way, but instead entered into a description of "vain" and "foolish" boasting.

The point of quoting Paul's boasting "in folly" as an introduction to this, was to set up Joseph's own boasting "in folly". The bottom line was that , like Paul, he was telling them that he was going to accomplish what God had sent him to accomplish, no matter what they tried to do to him, because God was with him, albeit "in a still small voice".

Pretending that Joseph actually had an ego to the extent that Joseph supposedly believed that he was better than Jesus , is an argument that will never be taken seriously. There are too many facts that contradict such an accusation.

-7up

Cow Poke
05-03-2014, 01:22 PM
This is simple Sparko.

No fair minded person, who has studied all of the teachings of Joseph Smith, will ever believe that Joseph actually thought he was greater than Jesus.

Simply not true. I know a number of ex-Mormons who DID believe as you, but the more they studied, the more they saw what a self-serving egotistic narcissist Smith was. :shrug:


It is contrary to everything that the prophet taught everywhere else. The context here was giving those people in the audience, who had violently attacked him and his family, something to chew on.

Who WERE "those people in the audience", Seven?


In retaliation, Joseph did not attack them back in a violent way, but instead entered into a description of "vain" and "foolish" boasting.

The point of quoting Paul's boasting "in folly" as an introduction to this, was to set up Joseph's own boasting "in folly". The bottom line was that , like Paul, he was telling them that he was going to accomplish what God had sent him to accomplish, no matter what they tried to do to him, because God was with him, albeit "in a still small voice".

Pretending that Joseph actually had an ego to the extent that Joseph supposedly believed that he was better than Jesus , is an argument that will never be taken seriously. There are too many facts that contradict such an accusation.

-7up

Smith DID have a huge ego. In every sense... Grand PooBah of the Masons, President of the United States, "General" of the Militia prancing about on his horse.... he was a HUGE egotist.

Cow Poke
05-03-2014, 01:27 PM
Smith DID have a huge ego. In every sense... Grand PooBah of the Masons, President of the United States, "General" of the Militia prancing about on his horse.... he was a HUGE egotist.

Joseph Smith’s Platform

Joseph wasted little time in preparing a platform for his campaign. He met with William W. Phelps and dictated to him the headings for a political pamphlet titled General Smith’s Views of the Powers and Policy of the Government of the United States, the foundation document for his presidential platform.

seven7up
05-03-2014, 01:27 PM
Why was my post to Bill removed?

Cow Poke
05-03-2014, 01:44 PM
Wow, I didn't even KNOW this part....
The most important plank in Joseph’s platform concerned the powers of the president. Joseph wanted to give the chief magistrate “full power to send an army to suppress mobs … [without requiring] the governor of a state to make the demand.”

So, as President*, Smith wanted unfettered control "an army" to intervene in states.... if THAT isn't ego, what is? :huh: I can't make this stuff up!



*praise God, it never came to that!

Bill the Cat
05-03-2014, 04:12 PM
Why was my post to Bill removed?

It was moved by me. I explained it in another thread.

seven7up
05-03-2014, 05:53 PM
7UP: Why do you think that talking to God or having the golden plates would automatically impart to Joseph all aspects of theological knowledge all at once?


First, I apologize for implying you "lied", but that's the feeling I get when you just keep repeating the same thing, even after being told that's NOT what we think... That just makes you look like a kool-aid drinking script reader. "if they say X, respond with Y".

You are implying that Joseph Smith SHOULD have known that the Father had a tangible embodiment from the very beginning. I am simply responding to that. I explained, from the words in our conversation, how I arrived to the conclusion that was what you were implying.


The fact that you do not understand the Trinity does not prove that it was not taught in the early Mormon Church.

The fact that you think that the Mormon Church taught the Trinity (as taught in Creedal Trinitarianism) proves that you do do not understand the Trinity. The Trinity teaches that God is literally omnipresent. The Trinity teaches that the Father and the Son are the same being/substance. Joseph Smith was not teaching that.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Book of Mormon discusses a physical separation and embodiment (shape, position and form) of members of the Godhead (See: 3 Nephi 11:, 1 Nephi 11:1-11, Ether 3:14-18.)

In 1830, Joseph explained the meaning of Genesis 1:26 as:

And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and it was so....And I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I them. (Moses 2:26-27.)

Again, "in mine own image" to refer to a physical likeness and/or appearance, rather than some kind of a moral or intellectual similarities.

The explanation of Genesis 5:1-2 reads: In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; in the image of his own body, male and female, created he them (Moses 6:8-9; emphasis added).

- "the different denominations are very much opposed to us.... The Methodists also come, and they rage, for they worship a God without body or parts, and they know that our faith comes in contact with this principle." (Lucy Mack Smith - 1830)

- "The Prophet Joseph said: 'Brethren, now you are prepared to be the apostles of Jesus Christ, for you have seen both the Father and the Son and know that They exist and that They are two separate personages.' (Joseph Smith 1832-33)

How about a non-Mormon witness:

- [The Mormons] contend that the God worshipped by the Presbyterians and all other sectarians is no better than a wooden god. They believe that the true God is a material being, composed of body and parts; and that when the Creator formed Adam in his own image, he made him about the size and shape of God himself. (Truman Coe, a Presbyterian minister, who lived in Kirtland for four years (1832–1836).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Yes, he couldn't keep his stories straight -- even though he had, allegedly, the "Urum and Thummum", the golden plates, and the power of translation, he couldn't keep it straight.


I see. So, Joseph Smith was teaching Creedal Trinitarianism before 1835 , except when he wasn't.

The power of translation was a way to translate what was on the plates into English. You cannot blame the prophets that Joseph Smith was translating from for not having a complete understanding of the Godhead, when the Israelites did not have a complete understanding of the Godhead either.



-7up

seven7up
05-03-2014, 06:46 PM
We simply pay attention to CONTEXT, both textual and historical. Those verses fall under category 4 in this list:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---
In what sense are they "one"? Oneness of God can be found in scripture in the following ways:

(1) There is only one perfectly united, mutually indwelling, divine community. We call that community "God" and there is only one such community.
(2) There is only one God who is our Father or the fount of divinity (ie "the Most High God).
(3) There is only one divine nature or set of properties severally necessary and jointly sufficient for divinity.
(4) When compared to the false gods of other nations, there was only one Lord/Saviour who could provide redemption/salvation
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



Really? a "community?" - Then you are calling YHWH a liar, because he said there was no God formed before him, nor after him.

Again, the context you refer to falls under category 4 above. The idol worshipers were "forming" and "creating" statues and worshiping them.


HE ("I" - note the singular, not "we") is the only God.

Only in that context, compared to false idols. In another context, God DOES say "us" and "our" and God IS plural (Elohim). And obviously, in another context, we see in the New Testament subject and object distinctions in reference to Jesus and the Father. Are you saying that this Old Testament verse you are referring to should be considered as evidence against the Trinity, because there is no subject/object distinction between Father and Son made here? If you want to misunderstand the context of that statement and try to apply it to other aspects of theology in the Godhead, then you should realize that it would go against your understanding of the Trinity as well.


If Jesus was once a man who "joined the community" then the community existed BEFORE he was God. Yet he specifically says that is not the case.

Technically, the LDS position is that Jesus was Deity BEFORE entering mortality, and even before the creation of the universe, before time even existed in this universe. However, that is obviously outside the scope of the statement you are referring to, which again, is about people making false idols of wood, stone, metal, etc.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---




Yes I can imagine the Father with Jesus beside him. They are one God revealed as two persons. Your lack of the understanding of the trinity is the problem here.

That wasn't the question. The question is this. Knowing that Jesus Christ refers to the Father as greater than him and knowing that Jesus refers to the Father as his God would Jesus stand at the right hand of the Father and say "there is no God beside me"? No, the context is entirely different.




If Jesus is YHWH and the creator (Genesis, John) then the Father did nothing. He is no "most high God" - he didn't do squat. He is no God at all.

I didn't say the Father did nothing. It was a joint effort. They worked together as a team. It is a Plural noun and a singular verb. Also, that is why it says "Let US create..."


Yet the bible says he is God. It also says Jesus is God. And the Holy Spirit is God. Yet only one God.

In one sense they are three, and in another sense they are one.



Well if Jesus is YHWH and the Father is not, as the LDS teach, then it must be Jesus' house huh?

It becomes Jesus' house by inheritance. If Jesus and the Father are the same being, as Trinitarians claim, then Jesus would not have to be "given" authority and Jesus would not have "inherit" anything because it would already be his.


You realize that Elohim is a plural word. But that plurality doesn't extend to number of beings. It is like Sheep. The "we" used in Genesis is there because of grammar, not because of number of Gods. sheesh.

Yes. I am fully aware that Elohim is a plural word. The Singular is El or Eloah. It is the -im ("-eem") on the end which makes it plural. It is like water (Hebrew mayim). A body of water has multiple "waters" which are gathered together and those "waters" act as one.


Again, you don't understand the trinity at all. At least try to understand what we believe before burning down a straw man.

Nobody understands it or can understand it because it is contradictory. The doctrine was created in order to appease both sides of a controversy, and each side of the controversy argues for different sides of a position. So, all you have are straw men.


TWO persons, one divine nature: God. Also Jesus ... is a different person from the Father, yet shares the same divine nature with him.

I can agree with you on this part here.

However, that is not what defines Creedal Trinitarianism or separates us theologically. The difference between us is when you attempt to claim that the Father and the Son are the same substance/Being. That never was a part of LDS doctrine and never will be.

-7up

Cow Poke
05-03-2014, 07:05 PM
7UP: Why do you think that talking to God or having the golden plates would automatically impart to Joseph all aspects of theological knowledge all at once?

You're really being dense, Seven.... NOBODY is saying that. :lolo: This is really getting old.

seven7up
05-03-2014, 07:40 PM
I love how you like to take things literally that are obviously figurative in order to support your LDS doctrines, yet when something is clearly literal, but it disproves your doctrine, all of a sudden, and for no reason and with no support, it becomes "figurative"

I provide support AND reason. I have done it every time. Why do LDS take the concept of "oneness" figuratively? Because the Bible clearly does.

"I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21*that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22*I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23*I in them and you in me..."

Acts 4:32 multitude ... of one heart and of one soul

Rom. 12:5 we, being many, are one body in Christ

2 Cor. 13:11 Be perfect ... of one mind

Gal. 3:28 ye are all one in Christ

Philip. 1:27 one spirit, with one mind striving together

LDS use and understand the words the way they are used elsewhere in the Biblical text. Meanwhile, you use vocabulary and definitions derived from the man made creeds. That is why I said this to Bill"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
David Noel Freedman explained this way:

"The victory over Arianism achieved at the Council was really a victory snatched by the superior energy and decision of a small minority with the aid of half-hearted allies. The majority did not like the business at all, and strongly disapproved of the introduction into the Creed new and untraditional and unscriptural terms."
http://www.vdebooks.com/divine-commitment-and-human-obligation-selected-writings-of-david-noel-freedman--hi-PDF-3166905/

The reason why I brought in Ex Nihilo into this discussion, is because the idea of creation "out of nothing" is one of the factors that helped overthrow "subordinationist" views of the Godhead, which were in the majority prior to the formation of Creedal Trinitarianism. If Jesus Christ was made or begotten "out of nothing", then how can He be eternal? Therefore, Trinitarians had to invent concepts like Jesus being constantly issued forth from the Father, who sustains the Son's existence from all eternity and thus is called "eternally begotten". This was a ploy to change the meaning of the language and what it actually means to be "begotten". Don't expect LDS to buy into it. You have to come up with silly things like "functional subordination" , whereby Jesus has to act like he is subordinate to the Father, but he really isn't because they are actually the same being/substance. All of that is nonsense and unBiblical.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -



This is not a figure of speech, 7up. It is exactly what it says. Yes, it means that there is no peer to the person, but that is exactly what it means literally too. God has no peer! No one, nothing is God besides him! There is only ONE God. Not a "community of Gods"

7UP: When Isaiah writes “there is none beside me” in regard to how God feels about his superiority above all other gods, and then Isaiah writes “there is none beside me” in regard to how the Babylonians felt they were superior to the other nations. The phrase means the same thing in each case. The idiom means the same thing, even if in one instance it is a true statement (God’s) and in the second instance it is not a true statement (Babylon). Neither one is actually meant to deny the literal existence of other "gods" or other "cities". In fact, the Bible refers to "gods" in several ways A) the True God (Godhead or members within) B) angels (ie "hosts of heaven") C) men who have been given authority by god D) false idols . The only option here that doesn't actually exist is option D.

Paul covers this topic as follows in 1 Corinthians and I will insert the letter designated above to indicate which kind of "god" he is referring to:

"we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world (D), and that there is no God but one (A). For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords (could be B or C ... B for ones in heaven and C for ones on Earth), 6yet for us there is but one God (a member within A), the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; AND one Lord (a member within A), Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him."


The word Elohim which is translated "God" can mean "God" or "Judge" - it is the context that matters.

I agree that context matters. That is what I have been saying this whole time. The "Most High God" is the "God of gods" and the "Lord of lords". There are "gods" which actually exist; that is who Paul refers to when he says "indeed, there are gods many and lords many".

Also please note, that most of the New Testament writers, when referring to the "one true God" are referring to the Father ONLY, just as Paul did here. He says, " there is but one God , the Father ... AND one Lord , Jesus Christ. Numerically they are two - God the Father is the "one God" and Jesus Christ is not the same Being, but instead the second, who has inherited the title "Lord" from the Father.

In another context, the critics of Jesus accused him of claiming to be equal to God. In response, Jesus referenced the scripture in the Old Testament which says "ye are gods". Were those men just accusing Jesus of claiming to be a "judge"? No, they were trying to argue against the Deity of Jesus. The response of Jesus is to say that anybody who is given divine authority is a god according to the Law and the Prophets (Old Testament). Divine authority is one of the keys of godliness, even if those men were still mortal, and very flawed individuals. So, the argument from Jesus is that if God made them gods, then how much more Jesus deserves the title of God , because his authority is only second to the authority of the Father.

You make a mistake of thinking that "gods" "angels" and "men" are all ontologically different kinds of beings. That is incorrect. They are all the same kind of being. That is what makes the incarnation possible. If there was truly an "ontological divide" between Deity and man, then Jesus could not have been both Deity and man.

I have a yes or no question for you. When the "Most High God" is called the "God of gods", do you really think that it is meant to refer to the Almighty as the "God of (false idols)"? I don't think so.


Isolated verses? LOL. Please 7up, don't try that crap on us. The bible is FULL of God telling mankind he is the creator, and God and that there is only him and no other God. If you were to chop out all those verses you would end up with a bible half the size it is now. Which is why I am guessing the LDS had to add their own "bible" and even then, Smith had to attempt to rewrite the bible we already have.

Again, I explained this:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Jesus Christ (who was Yahweh/Jehovah) in these passages was being compared to the false gods/idols of other nations. He is the one who would pay the penalty for sin, and is the true Savior. The other "gods" of the other nations were figments of their imagination and did not exist, until they "created" and "formed" them from wood, stone, metal, etc. That is the CONTEXT.

Were the other members of the Godhead capable of performing the atonement? Maybe. But they didn't. Did God the Father suffer for my sins? No. Did the Holy Spirit suffer for my sins? No. They have a different role than Christ has. But you are missing the point. The Old Testament passages comparing the Lord God of Israel to the "gods" of other nations is NOT meant to be comparing Jesus Christ to God the Father or the Holy Spirit.

Again, Jesus would not say "there is no god beside me" or "there is no other god" while standing at the right hand of the Father. In that context, it would be blasphemy.

In fact, we know this because Jesus DID say things in this different contexts, such as:

'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'”
and
"If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

-7up

Cow Poke
05-03-2014, 07:46 PM
You are implying that Joseph Smith SHOULD have known that the Father had a tangible embodiment from the very beginning.

Well, GEE, since he was supposedly hearing DIRECTLY FROM "the Father", yeah... I think that's a pretty significant detail to get totally WRONG. But, NO, that is NOT what I am implying... I am flat out STATING that Smith said whatever he felt he needed to say to get whatever it was he wanted... like plural marriages, his own bank, Grand PooBah at the local lodge, General of his own army... the guy was an egotist who just made up whatever worked for him.


I see.

No, you obviously do not.


So, Joseph Smith was teaching Creedal Trinitarianism before 1835 , except when he wasn't.

YOUR words, but, OK! :thumb:


The power of translation was a way to translate what was on the plates into English.

The plates were imaginary, and so was the Urim and Thummim... Smith used seer stones - the same ones he used for money digging. :shrug:


You cannot blame the prophets that Joseph Smith was translating from for not having a complete understanding of the Godhead, when the Israelites did not have a complete understanding of the Godhead either.

I don't blame the prophets -- I blame the con man, Joseph Smith, for not being able to keep his stories straight.

Sparko
05-04-2014, 10:47 AM
This is simple Sparko.

No fair minded person, who has studied all of the teachings of Joseph Smith, will ever believe that Joseph actually thought he was greater than Jesus. It is contrary to everything that the prophet taught everywhere else.

In this case, Smith was very emotional and felt like he was being betrayed and persecuted, not only by the world but by many in his own community. His emotions got the better of him, and his narcissism showed clearly. It is evident in a lot of his writings, but this example of him spewing angrily at everyone that he was better than Jesus was an emotional release that showed his inner self to the world more clearly than previously.

Wake up!

seven7up
05-04-2014, 11:28 PM
I wanted to address something previously being discussed with Bill, because it is important in the "Trinity" discussion.

Hebrews chapter 1
4 Having become so much better than the angels, as (Jesus) hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

7UP: All of them are "sons of God" in the spiritual sense.


Then to every one of them, He can say that they are His sons, and that makes a mess of this entire chapter.

No it doesn't. We have God being the Father in a spiritual sense, and then we have God being the Father in a new and unique sense; unique to Jesus only. There are many "sons of God" in a spiritual sense, of whom Jesus Christ is the Firstbegotten among the other "sons of God". As Paul explained in Col 1:15, Jesus is "the first-born of all creation". This is true of Jesus BEFORE mortality, when all of creation was made subject to Him. This term "first born" is the same Greek term which is in Hebrews chapter 1, and it is also the same as used in Luke 2:7, referring to Jesus being Mary's first child (in mortality). It is the same concept.

By right in the Monarchy, this gives Jesus the position of power and authority. God the Father spiritually begat this unique Son into a position of "pre-eminence" which is his "inheritance" because Jesus is the First born (firstbegotten). All that the Father was given to the Son as the creation, and then it is to be glorified/resurrected and presented again in the "new creation". The correct rendering of verse 4 is given above. Jesus was elevated and "became" better than the angels and "by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they." This is clearly comparing Jesus to the other angels.

The LDS position is that, by nature, Jesus Christ had the inherent characteristics of Deity. In other words, Jesus was a perfect/flawless intelligence from all eternity. However, as the firstbegotten in spirit, power and authority had to be bestowed upon him, and it was. He was chosen and called by the Father a to be the Creator of the physical Universe, and to become the Only Begotten Son according to the flesh. So, the chapter makes perfect sense from this position. By inheriting the name of the Father, and being called from among his fellows to become the Savior of the world, it was decreed that the other sons of God would worship Jesus, because Jesus was to become their Redeemer, and was given power over death. This is possible because of His flawless spirit and inherent characteristics of Deity, he would not sin.

Hebrews 1 is teaching a kind of subordinationism was found in the early Christian Church before the Trinity dogma was invented, and it is consistent with the LDS position. In the early second century, the Shepherd of Hermas spoke of the Holy Spirit as “the angel of the prophetic Spirit” and Jesus as the “‘glorious...angel’ or ‘most venerable...angel.’” Justin Martyr in the mid-second century, wrote that Jesus is “another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel.” He is “distinct from Him who made all things,—numerically, I mean, not in will.” Also, Justin wrote “We reverence and worship Him (the Father) and the Son who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of other good angels who are about Him and are made quite like Him, and the Prophetic Spirit.”

All of it makes Biblical sense, especially when you consider the two scriptures that I provided for you, where Jesus is called a "Morning Star / Son of the Morning". This is an angelic title. As you and I both know, Lucifer was an angel who is also called a 'son of the morning' or 'morning star'. Indeed there were many, many "sons of the morning" who are the "sons of God".

You attempted to imply that only those who do God's will can be considered the "sons of god", whether the the title is applied to humans or spirits (angels). However, we see in the book of Acts, "all the nations" are considered to be God's offspring (Greek - genos). GENOS kindred , offspring, family, stock, (the aggregate of many individuals of the same nature, kind, sort). Also, we see that Lucifer is still considered a "son of the morning" after he had fallen from heaven. "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" (Isa 14:12) So, we can conclude that all spirits and all men are "sons of God" and the "offspring of God", in the original sense and even when "fallen". We can lose the rights and privileges associated with our sonship due to disobedience. I will explain further.

Adam is a "son of God" as are all the rest of the human family in the ultimate sense. It is true that with sin, we become alienated from the Father, and in that sense, that we lose our position and the rights that sons would have, but that is not an ontological change (it is not a change of what kind of being we are). In fact, the only reason that we are capable of obtaining "Eternal Life" is because, through Christs atonement, it brings us back to a kind of position before God which we had in paradise, which was previously lost - only now we are as God said to the other gods, "man has become as one of us, knowing good and evil". That is the story of mankind in the Garden of Eden - children of God within God's presence who left that place in order to enter mortality. Again a Biblical story providing a picture of LDS theology; a premortal existence in the presence of God.


No. He is the only begotten son, period. 1 John 4:9 says "9 By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him." Notice it says He SENT His ONLY BEGOTTEN INTO the world, meaning that Jesus was the only begotten BEFORE coming here.

He is also called the "Firstbegotten" who is brought into the world (Hebrews 1) and also the "first born of all creation". Both titles are appropriate BEFORE the incarnation. You are referring to a "foreordination" to become the "Only Begotten Son".

"We affirm, on the authority of Holy Scripture, that the Being who is known among men as Jesus of Nazareth, and by all who acknowledge His Godhood as Jesus the Christ, existed with the Father prior to birth in the flesh; and that in the preexistent state He was chosen and ordained to be the one and only Savior and Redeemer of the human race. Foreordination implies and comprises preexistence as an essential condition; therefore scriptures bearing upon the one are germane to the other;" (Talmage - Jesus the Christ)

Hebrews verse 9 says the following: "Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows."

From your position, you have to pretend that Jesus was not chosen or anointed until AFTER he became mortal. We know that this is not true. Look how reasons are given for why the God of Jesus anointed him from among his fellows - namely Jesus loved righteousness and hated iniquity. This must be true before mortality, for Jesus, "Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world (1 Peter 1:20) You cannot claim that God chose Jesus as an afterthought, after he became a man.

Furthermore, there is no sense in claiming that Jesus was "elected" or "chosen" or "foreordained", if from before the foundation of the world, there was nobody else to choose from. As I said, the context of Hebrews 1 is clearly discussing angels, and Jesus being elected from among them, thus "becoming better" than them, and "obtaining" a better name than them by inheritance. In Isaiah 42:1, we find these prophetic words about Jesus: “Behold! My Servant whom I uphold, my elect/chosen one in whom my soul delights"

(Bill posted Deuteronomy 18)
15 “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen—
...
18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.

That is correct. We are ALL brothers. Jesus included. We were brothers before this life and we are brothers in mortality. And we are all created by God in the image and likeness of God. There are many sons of God according to the spirit, but Jesus Christ was ordained from before the foundation of the world to be the Only Begotten according to the flesh. You and I both know that "sons of God" or "children of God" is a title applied to both spirits in Heaven (ie angels), AND it is applied to humans on Earth. Humans are simply spirits (spiritual sons - angels) placed into physical bodies, and our memory is veiled so that we can live in mortality by faith, rather than a perfect knowledge. If God wanted us to have a perfect knowledge of his existence, he could have revealed Himself in glory to the whole world at any time. The idea that angels and humans are different species of beings is an error.

7UP: The writer of Hebrews is EQUATING angels and humans, just like Latter Day Saints do.


No he is not. He is telling the Jews, who were hyper-reverencing angels (as obvious from Justin's Dialogue with Trypho), that they needed to be worshipping their King, because even the angels do.

I agree that Jesus should be worshiped, and other angels should not. Again, this is because the "scepter" of the kingdom was passed from the Father only to the first born Son. That is the imagery of the Hebrews 1 passage. This is the Divine Monarchy. The Father is the King and the first born Son of God "obtains" his inheritance by "becoming" the new King - a perfect profile of LDS doctrine.


Only superficially.

Not superficially. It matches LDS doctrine in a very deep and rich way. I will tell you what DOES NOT match the text: the idea that the Father and Jesus are the same being/substance. That does not match the text at all.


I'll trust Jesus over Joseph Smith's lies any day.

It is not a matter of you trusting Jesus. You are trusting a faulty an uninspired interpretation of the text. Consider 2 Peter 1:

"For he (Jesus) received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

What you have in the creeds Bill, are documents formed "by the will of man". Those councils which formed the creeds were full of "private interpretation" and then forced into a vote, and in the case of Nicea, forced by Constantine so that he could consolidate power over the Christian world. Those men in those councils were not holy men speaking as moved by the Holy Spirit.


Sorry, but you are trying to apply the Deuteronomy prophecy to angels. You are wrong. His "fellows" were the Jews, over whom He was to rule as King and High Priest.

I am applying it to the "sons of God", who are both angels and men. They are the same kind of being, only in a different state: one state is a glorious one in the presence of God, and another is a temporarily lower state, as a mortal, subject to infirmity and death and limited in our knowledge of God.

7UP explained that in Genesis 48, the text calls Jesus, the God of Israel, "the Angel who redeems me from all evil".


Sorry, but the Hebrew word "malak" is not a description of a species, it is a description of a function that one serves in to take a message from one person to another.

Thank you for agreeing with me. I agree that the term "angel" does not describe an ontologically different kind of being. In the Old testament, it often simply refers to a spirit son of God, acting as a servant of God before mortality, who is serving as a messenger. This is the case for Jesus as well, who was known as God the Father's mouthpiece in the Old Testament, as Jehovah/Yahweh, "the Word of God", the "Angel of the Lord's presence".

-7up

seven7up
05-04-2014, 11:46 PM
In this case, Smith was very emotional and felt like he was being betrayed and persecuted, not only by the world but by many in his own community.

The Mormon community was in the audience as he spoke, but also people like those who dragged him from his home and tarred and feathered him. They were there too. I agree that he had an emotional response, and understandably so. The Lord even had to calm Joseph, and in a certain sense rebuke him, in these kinds of situations, because Joseph obviously became impatient and frustrated:

The word of the Lord to Joseph Smith the Prophet, while a prisoner in the jail at Liberty, Missouri.

1 The ends of the earth shall inquire after thy name, and fools shall have thee in derision, and hell shall rage against thee;

2 While the pure in heart, and the wise, and the noble, and the virtuous, shall seek counsel, and authority, and blessings constantly from under thy hand.

3 And thy people shall never be turned against thee by the testimony of traitors.

4 And although their influence shall cast thee into trouble, and into bars and walls, thou shalt be had in honor; and but for a small moment and thy voice shall be more terrible in the midst of thine enemies than the fierce lion, because of thy righteousness; and thy God shall stand by thee forever and ever.

5 If thou art called to pass through atribulation; if thou art in perils among false brethren; if thou art in perils among robbers; if thou art in perils by land or by sea;

6 If thou art accused with all manner of false accusations; if thine enemies fall upon thee; if they tear thee from the society of thy father and mother and brethren and sisters; and if with a drawn sword thine enemies tear thee from the bosom of thy wife, and of thine offspring, and thine elder son, although but six years of age, shall cling to thy garments, and shall say, My father, my father, why can’t you stay with us? O, my father, what are the men going to do with you? and if then he shall be thrust from thee by the sword, and thou be dragged to prison, and thine enemies prowl around thee like wolves for the blood of the lamb;

7 And if thou should be cast into the pit, or into the hands of murderers, and the sentence of death passed upon thee; if thou be cast into the deep; if the billowing surge conspire against thee; if fierce winds become thine enemy; if the heavens gather blackness, and all the elements combine to hedge up the way; and above all, if the very jaws of hell shall gape open the mouth wide after thee, know thou, my son, that all these things shall give thee experience, and shall be for thy good.

8 The Son of Man hath descended below them all. Art thou greater than he?

9 Therefore, hold on thy way, and the priesthood shall remain with thee; for their bounds are set, they cannot pass. Thy days are known, and thy years shall not be numbered less; therefore, fear not what man can do, for God shall be with you forever and ever.


-7up

RBerman
05-05-2014, 05:28 AM
And, I have to add... it AMAZES me the extent to which Mormons have to go to downplay the significance of their "Prophet" in order to excuse his foibles. :brood:

As more information about his life and the inconsistencies of his teaching come to light, that seems inevitable. A very different social dynamic is at work today than when people were giving up their homes and moving cross country to be with him and let him "marry" their wives, daughters, and servants.

RBerman
05-05-2014, 05:31 AM
This reminds me. Back when I had a lot of time to be clever, I was on a forum where a Trinitarian debated a Oneness theologian (essentially Modalist) in one thread, and that same Trinitarian debated a Latter-Day Saint on another thread. I went through both threads and then posted, in the Trinitarian's own words, a debate against himself. Very amusing.

You can certainly make someone seem foolish by taking words intended for one context and applying them to another context. How you ever seen Weird Al's fake interviews with celebrities? Amusing stuff, indeed, but not a reflection of what they actually believe.

Cow Poke
05-05-2014, 06:51 AM
The Mormon community was in the audience as he spoke, but also people like those who dragged him from his home and tarred and feathered him. They were there too.

How many of those were angry Mormons who felt betrayed and stabbed in the back? Smith had a tendency to get his own followers really angry at him.

Cow Poke
05-05-2014, 06:55 AM
As more information about his life and the inconsistencies of his teaching come to light, that seems inevitable. A very different social dynamic is at work today than when people were giving up their homes and moving cross country to be with him and let him "marry" their wives, daughters, and servants.

Absolutely agreed! But very soon, many of those turned on him because of some of his self-centered ploys like the Kirkland Bank, is sexual escapades.. he even had to have his own vigilante group to control the crowds of angry Mormons at Far West, Mo. Even some of the mob that eventually killed him consisted of his own former followers.

Sparko
05-05-2014, 07:15 AM
How many of those were angry Mormons who felt betrayed and stabbed in the back? Smith had a tendency to get his own followers really angry at him.

Yeah like all of his "witnesses" that later recanted. Or his wife Emma and son who left and started their own denomination, and all of his BFFs that he excommunicated.

Smith was more like a cartoon villain than a prophet.

Bill the Cat
05-05-2014, 10:44 AM
No it doesn't. We have God being the Father in a spiritual sense, and then we have God being the Father in a new and unique sense; unique to Jesus only.

In a spiritual sense in that He created our spirits. In the same metaphorical sense as Euclid was the "Father" of geometry. He did not create the Son. He created us.


There are many "sons of God" in a spiritual sense, of whom Jesus Christ is the Firstbegotten among the other "sons of God".

No. He is the prototokos, which here emphasizes His pre-eminence over all creation, not a numerical order of His "birth". That's why, in Col 1:15, He is called "prototokos pases ktiseos" or "firstborn of all creation". If we look at Jeremiah 31:9, we see an example which really shows how the most prominent to God was actually called "my firstborn" (Ephraim). Although Manassah was actually the firstborn child (Genesis 41:50-52), God chose Ephraim and thus says "as for Ephraim, he is my firstborn" (Jer. 31:9). If we take your numeric order literally, that would mean that Jesus is the first in the series of every species, meaning He would be OF every species. Sorry, but your interpretation fails the biblical record on multiple fronts yet again.



As Paul explained in Col 1:15, Jesus is "the first-born of all creation". This is true of Jesus BEFORE mortality, when all of creation was made subject to Him. This term "first born" is the same Greek term which is in Hebrews chapter 1, and it is also the same as used in Luke 2:7, referring to Jesus being Mary's first child (in mortality). It is the same concept.

When prototokos is used in a literal sense, as it is in Hebrews 1 and Luke 2:7, it is referring to the Son taking on flesh. Yet again, you think Hebrews 1 refers to pre-incarnation, which it does not. It is ALL about Jesus' humanity and subsequent coronation and why this human, God's "firstborn", called both monogenes and prototokos in different places, deserved to be the object of worship for the Jews. They would understand, as Jews who knew the story of Ephraim and Manasseh, that "prototokos" in this instance would not be implying any sort of birth order.



By right in the Monarchy, this gives Jesus the position of power and authority. God the Father spiritually begat this unique Son into a position of "pre-eminence" which is his "inheritance" because Jesus is the First born (firstbegotten). All that the Father was given to the Son as the creation, and then it is to be glorified/resurrected and presented again in the "new creation". The correct rendering of verse 4 is given above. Jesus was elevated and "became" better than the angels and "by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they." This is clearly comparing Jesus to the other angels.

Yes, comparing Him to them because the Jews were worshipping the angels instead of their rightful King. But it in no way EQUATES them. Jesus is not considered of the same species as those whom God "makes His angels winds, And His ministers a flame of fire". The writer is stressing the different roles that the Son plays and the angels play. He is not saying they are the same species. He is saying that angels are created to be messengers ONLY while the Son came into the world to be King.



The LDS position is that, by nature, Jesus Christ had the inherent characteristics of Deity. In other words, Jesus was a perfect/flawless intelligence from all eternity.

And thus, not at all like His Father or us, who all had/have to be granted our perfection based on another's righteousness.



However, as the firstbegotten in spirit, power and authority had to be bestowed upon him, and it was.

Sorry, but no. There are several times where a literal "first born" child did not receive God's title of "first born".


He was chosen and called by the Father a to be the Creator of the physical Universe, and to become the Only Begotten Son according to the flesh.

I have no problem with this statement. But, again, this does not imply that there were other options to choose from, nor that the Son and angels (or the bene elohim) were "offspring" in the same manner. It is more similar to Euclid being a father to his sons and a "father" to Geometry.


So, the chapter makes perfect sense from this position.

No it doesn't. It makes Jesus "just another angel" who happened to get lucky and win the celestial lottery, and makes a mess of the entire book of Hebrews.


By inheriting the name of the Father,

He inherited the name/title "King of the Jews"


and being called from among his fellows to become the Savior of the world, it was decreed that the other sons of God would worship Jesus, because Jesus was to become their Redeemer, and was given power over death. This is possible because of His flawless spirit and inherent characteristics of Deity, he would not sin.

Again, the Jews were His "fellows", not the gentiles, and certainly not the angels. Jesus was unique, and not just another angelic face in the crowd. He created them.


Hebrews 1 is teaching a kind of subordinationism was found in the early Christian Church before the Trinity dogma was invented, and it is consistent with the LDS position.

It was teaching no such thing. It was teaching the Kingship of Jesus over Israel.


In the early second century, the Shepherd of Hermas spoke of the Holy Spirit as “the angel of the prophetic Spirit” and Jesus as the “‘glorious...angel’ or ‘most venerable...angel.’” Justin Martyr in the mid-second century, wrote that Jesus is “another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel.” He is “distinct from Him who made all things,—numerically, I mean, not in will.” Also, Justin wrote “We reverence and worship Him (the Father) and the Son who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of other good angels who are about Him and are made quite like Him, and the Prophetic Spirit.”

The context here is not the number of gods, but the operation of the persons with each other. Justin was discussing with Trypho the impossibility of a strictly unipersonal monotheistic God when the scriptures say that He is not unipersonal. Justin says later “For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God.” Justin never directly mentions that there is only one God because Trypho and he already agree on it. What He is arguing for is that there are multiple persons in the one God, and that the Son was who appeared to the Partiarchs.



All of it makes Biblical sense, especially when you consider the two scriptures that I provided for you, where Jesus is called a "Morning Star / Son of the Morning". This is an angelic title.

No it is not. It is a description of the amount of glory radiating from someone. Just as the "Morning Star" (Venus) is the third brightest luminary in our sky, those with God's glory are called "Morning Star". The planet Venus is the lightbringer, the first thing that does away with the darkness of night. In fact, this glory is to be given to Christians who overcome the world (See Rev 2:28)


As you and I both know, Lucifer was an angel who is also called a 'son of the morning' or 'morning star'. Indeed there were many, many "sons of the morning" who are the "sons of God".


As reflections of God's glory, they were radiant beings, as Venus was a radiant "star" in the heavens. Nothing indicates they were "sired" by God and His wife (or whatever other nonsense spin you put on it) or that they were pre-humans.


You attempted to imply that only those who do God's will can be considered the "sons of god", whether the the title is applied to humans or spirits (angels).

No. I said that only those who do God's will are SPIRITUAL sons of God.

John 1:12
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name



However, we see in the book of Acts, "all the nations" are considered to be God's offspring (Greek - genos). GENOS kindred , offspring, family, stock, (the aggregate of many individuals of the same nature, kind, sort).

Because He made us, as in Acts 17:25. And just before calling us His "offspring", Paul explains what he means by saying

Acts 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being;

Just as the pagans in Athens believed, and specifically their poets that Paul was referring to:

Cilician poet Aratus (315-240 BCE): “It is with Zeus that every one of us in every way has to do, for we are also his offspring” (Phaenonlena 5).

And learned Greeks would know that Promethius was the one who actually formed man from the clay, but that Zeus was the supreme God in the Greek Pantheon, so he was the one by whom they continued to exist.


Also, we see that Lucifer is still considered a "son of the morning" after he had fallen from heaven. "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" (Isa 14:12)

I do not think that was said as a statement of fact as much as it was an insult. The shame of being reminded of who you were was evident here.


So, we can conclude that all spirits and all men are "sons of God" and the "offspring of God", in the original sense and even when "fallen".

Not even close. We can conclude that God is the father of all by virtue of creating them and being the most high God, but that only the believers were spiritual sons of God.


Adam is a "son of God" as are all the rest of the human family in the ultimate sense.

Again, only through Him creating Adam, and us too.


It is true that with sin, we become alienated from the Father, and in that sense, that we lose our position and the rights that sons would have, but that is not an ontological change (it is not a change of what kind of being we are).

No. We never had the spiritual sonship by default for us to lose. Our ontology is a created being, not a literal spiritual son of God.


In fact, the only reason that we are capable of obtaining "Eternal Life" is because, through Christs atonement, it brings us back to a kind of position before God which we had in paradise, which was previously lost

Simply and utterly untrue. Were that the case, there would be no need for us to be "adopted". See the parable of the Prodigal Son for example. The Prodigal did not need to be adopted when he returned to his father, yet WE need adoption in order to become Sons of God (Eph 1:5).


- only now we are as God said to the other gods, "man has become as one of us, knowing good and evil".


That is the story of mankind in the Garden of Eden - children of God within God's presence who left that place in order to enter mortality.

No. This is the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden, not anyone else. And they "entered mortality" before being cast out. God cursed them and made clothing for them before casting them out.


Again a Biblical story providing a picture of LDS theology; a premortal existence in the presence of God.

Utter and complete nonsense. Adam and Eve were not in any "pre-mortal existence" in Eden. They were on earth in the Garden.



He is also called the "Firstbegotten" who is brought into the world (Hebrews 1) and also the "first born of all creation". Both titles are appropriate BEFORE the incarnation.

I've already addressed this above, but I'll reiterate that the first term referred to His incarnation while the second His pre-eminence over creation. Neither have anything to do with Him being the same species as the angels.


You are referring to a "foreordination" to become the "Only Begotten Son".

No. He is the only begotten in both respects, spiritual before creation and physical at the incarnation.


"We affirm, on the authority of Holy Scripture, that the Being who is known among men as Jesus of Nazareth, and by all who acknowledge His Godhood as Jesus the Christ, existed with the Father prior to birth in the flesh; and that in the preexistent state He was chosen and ordained to be the one and only Savior and Redeemer of the human race. Foreordination implies and comprises preexistence as an essential condition; therefore scriptures bearing upon the one are germane to the other;" (Talmage - Jesus the Christ)

...Foreordination does not necessarily include pre-existence...

(Foundations of the Christian Way of Life According to 1 Peter 1, 13-25: An Exegetico-theological Study by Jacob Prasad)




Hebrews verse 9 says the following: "Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows."

Which was recited over the Kings of Israel in order for them to be legitimately crowned King.


From your position, you have to pretend that Jesus was not chosen or anointed until AFTER he became mortal.

:duh: Straw man. He did not become the rightful King of Israel until after his ascension.


We know that this is not true. Look how reasons are given for why the God of Jesus anointed him from among his fellows - namely Jesus loved righteousness and hated iniquity.

They are not REASONS. They are prophetic proclamations that He was to be crowned King. They were proclaimed over every monarch being crowned in Israel, even those who were wicked. That is what you fail to understand.


This must be true before mortality, for Jesus, "Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world (1 Peter 1:20) You cannot claim that God chose Jesus as an afterthought, after he became a man.

You are mixing verses that are dealing with different subjects. 1 Peter is dealing with salvation for the world. Hebrews 1 is dealing with Jesus being King over the Hebrews.


Furthermore, there is no sense in claiming that Jesus was "elected" or "chosen" or "foreordained", if from before the foundation of the world, there was nobody else to choose from.

That's utter tripe. You yourself admitted that he alone was a "perfect spirit", and since perfection was required for the sacrifice, He was the only candidate available. Or are you going to now claim that there were multiple perfect spirits to choose from? Or that an imperfect sacrifice would suffice? Which is it?


As I said, the context of Hebrews 1 is clearly discussing angels, and Jesus being elected from among them, thus "becoming better" than them, and "obtaining" a better name than them by inheritance.

And I've thoroughly debunked that claim. It is about the insufficiency of angels to be worshipped by the Hebrews and the sufficiency of the Son. It is about HIS right to be their King.

Heb 1:13 But to which of the angels has He ever said,
“Sit at My right hand,
Until I make Your enemies
A footstool for Your feet”?

Heb 1:14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation?

Were Jesus just "another angel", the answer would be "That angel", or the question should have included the word "Other".



In Isaiah 42:1, we find these prophetic words about Jesus: “Behold! My Servant whom I uphold, my elect/chosen one in whom my soul delights"

This is YHWH speaking, so how can it be about Jesus when it is Jesus speaking about His servant? :haha:


(Bill posted Deuteronomy 18)
15 “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen—
...
18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.

That is correct. We are ALL brothers. Jesus included.

NO!! This was Moses talking to the Jews, not us gentiles. It was used as proof that Jesus was the Messiah, since He was a Jew.


We were brothers before this life and we are brothers in mortality.

That is absolutely not even in the same realm as the context of this verse.


And we are all created by God in the image and likeness of God.

But we gentiles are not bretheren of the Jews, hence our need to be GRAFTED IN to the olive tree. Moses was talking to the Jews, and He said their bretheren were the Jews. Any interpretation that makes Gentiles the "bretheren" that Moses was talking about is simple hogwash.


There are many sons of God according to the spirit,

Again, only in that God created their spirits.


but Jesus Christ was ordained from before the foundation of the world to be the Only Begotten according to the flesh.

And He is the only begotten in the spirit.


You and I both know that "sons of God" or "children of God" is a title applied to both spirits in Heaven (ie angels), AND it is applied to humans on Earth.

So is the term "sons of your father, the devil". This is ample evidence to show that not all "sons" were natural descendents.


Humans are simply spirits (spiritual sons - angels) placed into physical bodies, and our memory is veiled so that we can live in mortality by faith, rather than a perfect knowledge.

False. Our spirits are created at our conception. We did not exist when the angels shouted at creation (See Job 38:7)



If God wanted us to have a perfect knowledge of his existence, he could have revealed Himself in glory to the whole world at any time.

I know this...


The idea that angels and humans are different species of beings is an error.

It is correct doctrine. The idea that they are the same species is fully debunked by the Bible.



I agree that Jesus should be worshiped, and other angels should not.

You loaded your response with "other" which is simply not there in scripture.


Again, this is because the "scepter" of the kingdom was passed from the Father only to the first born Son. That is the imagery of the Hebrews 1 passage. This is the Divine Monarchy. The Father is the King and the first born Son of God "obtains" his inheritance by "becoming" the new King - a perfect profile of LDS doctrine.

No it isn't. This synopsis ignores the key LDS doctrine (that has been refuted) that the Father, Son, and those the Father commands are the same species.



Not superficially. It matches LDS doctrine in a very deep and rich way.

That's a hoot! You have to do more exegetical gymnastics than the entire US National team...


I will tell you what DOES NOT match the text: the idea that the Father and Jesus are the same being/substance. That does not match the text at all.

Uh, maybe because the ontology of the Son is not what is being addressed... :duh:




It is not a matter of you trusting Jesus. You are trusting a faulty an uninspired interpretation of the text.

:rofl: Whatever you say Mr. Mitty...


Consider 2 Peter 1:

"For he (Jesus) received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

And??


What you have in the creeds Bill, are documents formed "by the will of man".

Who received instruction from the Apostles. What you have are the ravings of a megalomaniac.


Those councils which formed the creeds were full of "private interpretation" and then forced into a vote, and in the case of Nicea, forced by Constantine so that he could consolidate power over the Christian world.

You are thoroughly ignorant of Constantine's role in Nicea. Eusebius said that Constantine didn't care what conclusion they came to, only that a conclusion was reached to stave off chaos.


Those men in those councils were not holy men speaking as moved by the Holy Spirit.

Says an uninspired heretic. Color me unimpressed with your attempted synopsis.



I am applying it to the "sons of God", who are both angels and men. They are the same kind of being, only in a different state: one state is a glorious one in the presence of God, and another is a temporarily lower state, as a mortal, subject to infirmity and death and limited in our knowledge of God.

And your proof has been thoroughly refuted. Angels are not men. They are not humans. They are "ALL ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation".


Thank you for agreeing with me. I agree that the term "angel" does not describe an ontologically different kind of being.

In most cases. Sometimes it does.


In the Old testament, it often simply refers to a spirit son of God, acting as a servant of God before mortality, who is serving as a messenger.

It also refers to humans who delivered messages from king to king. It is not a species in and of itself, nor was it ever considered to be.


This is the case for Jesus as well, who was known as God the Father's mouthpiece in the Old Testament, as Jehovah/Yahweh, "the Word of God", the "Angel of the Lord's presence".

-7up

But He was not considered of the same species as the heavenly messengers.

seven7up
05-05-2014, 09:23 PM
Well, GEE, since he was supposedly hearing DIRECTLY FROM "the Father", yeah... I think that's a pretty significant detail to get totally WRONG. But, NO, that is NOT what I am implying...


Joseph had a vision. He didn't sit down and eat dinner with God the Father. He didn't touch God the Father. At that point, there is no way that Joseph could have known that the embodiment of the Father was tangible. It took a specific revelation to reveal that concept. So, you have no real point to make here.


However, it is a good lead in to another aspect of this discussion, concerning the nature of God. When God is presented in the Bible, the member of the Godhead being referred to is always shown to have a location. How is God "omnipresent"?

"God is considered to be everywhere present at the same moment; and the Psalmist says, “Whither shall I flee from thy presence?” [Psalm 139:7]. He is present with all his creations through his influence, through his government, spirit and power, but he himself is a personage of tabernacle, and we are made after his likeness" (DBY, 24).


-7up

seven7up
05-05-2014, 11:18 PM
7UP: Those councils which formed the creeds were full of "private interpretation" and then forced into a vote, and in the case of Nicea, forced by Constantine so that he could consolidate power over the Christian world.


You are thoroughly ignorant of Constantine's role in Nicea. Eusebius said that Constantine didn't care what conclusion they came to, only that a conclusion was reached to stave off chaos.

I never even implied that Constantine cared what the conclusion was. He forced a resolution to the conflict so that he could maintain power. The result was a compromise between contradictory positions, and thus the incoherent dogma was invented with new terms and new ways of defining words.

7UP: The early creeds (like the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed) did not define things that specifically. Why don't you provide me with your modern detailed definition of the Trinity, your "creed" so to speak. Then we can discuss it.


The relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is one substance (ousia) and three co-equal persons (hypostaseis).

"Ousia" was never applied to any member of the Godhead in the Bible or applied to God in general at all. Even so, if ousia originally means "what a person has" or even "a person's characteristics", then even LDS would say that God the Father has the same "ousia" as the Son. Then the creeds changed the definition of the word.


There is only one God, ...

LDS can say they believe in "one God", and as I have demonstrated, we use "oneness" of persons as it is used and understood everywhere else in the Biblical text.


(God is) unchangeable in His eternal Godhood.

There are problems when making a blanket claim that "God is unchangeable". Therefore, it may be necessary to add to the language "unchangeable in His eternal Godhead".

As we know, in the example of Jesus Christ, we see how Deity can become flesh, grow into an adult in mortality, die, resurrect to an exalted state, etc. Those could be considered "changes" in a certain sense. So, what do you mean by unchangeable "in His eternal Godhead"?

The problem I have with the "unchangeable" term is this: While the scriptures use the idea of unchangeable referring to God in terms of keeping promises and so forth, Trinitarianism attempts to take the "unchangeable" concept to some kind of metaphysical sense. That goes far beyond the warrant of the Biblical text and appears to be borrowed from the Greek philosophical view of God, (ie the unmoved mover).


(God is) uncreated.

The creeds often say that Jesus is "begotten, not made". Yet again, the definition of "begotten" must be changed entirely.


There exists within that one substance we call God 3 distinct centers of consciousness,...

The concept of 3 centers of consciousness is a relatively new concept in Trinitarian theory, and was actually a move closer to the Mormon position. For starters, IF God the Father is literally omnipresent, then how can such a being have a "center" of consciousness?

The very concept of 3 centers of consciousness was met and opposed by many Trinitarians as a form of "tritheism". 3 centers of consciousness implies that it is not a "single substance", but instead 3 persons, who are separate in a certain sense (separate consciousnesses) with the same characteristics. They are united in a perichoresis and harmony of will. A special communication between them. That is an LDS point of view. Welcome to the club. Of course you cannot say that, because you have already defined it as a "single Being". Again, contradictions arise.


...if you preserve monotheism as the central key.

It also depends on how you define "monotheism", which is also a term not found in the scriptures. It just goes back to the concept of "one God". In what sense are they "one"? Jews will argue with you and say that you are not a "monotheist".

7UP: What does it mean to be "co-equal"?


It means that one is not "less God" than another.

I agree that Jesus is "fully God". Nevertheless, the Father is greater than the Son in glory and authority. So, that puts a damper on the "co-equal" notion. As I said, the definition of co-equal is "equal with one another; having the same rank or importance". However, it appears that the Father has a higher rank than the Son.

You gave an example of your wife being subservient to you, but that is a bad example, because you and your wife are not supposedly the same being.


None of them "became God".

The LDS view is that Jesus, for example, had a perfect/flawless intelligence from eternity with the characteristics of Deity. However, does your definition of "God" require the concept of power and authority? We see that power and authority is "given" from the Father to the Son.


They are all 3 fully God, yet there is only one God.

We have 3 full glasses of water. How many glasses of water do you have? You have 3 glasses of water. You can even say that each glass of water has the same substance. But I don't even think you could accept that analogy. Can you?


One can not be taken away from being God, ....

I agree that they cannot be "taken away" from being God.


... nor can any other being "join" them as God.

Certainly we cannot become the same Being. That is impossible. Just as what you are proposing is impossible We can become "like" them though.

-7up

Cow Poke
05-06-2014, 03:25 AM
Joseph had a vision.

No, he CLAIMED he had a vision, and he couldn't even keep THAT story straight.


He didn't sit down and eat dinner with God the Father. He didn't touch God the Father.

Agreed, 100%


At that point, there is no way that Joseph could have known that the embodiment of the Father was tangible. It took a specific revelation to reveal that concept. So, you have no real point to make here.

There are different versions of the "first vision" in which he contradicts his own "testimony".


However, it is a good lead in to another aspect of this discussion, concerning the nature of God. When God is presented in the Bible, the member of the Godhead being referred to is always shown to have a location. How is God "omnipresent"?

Because He is God. The ONE TRUE God, everlasting.


"God is considered to be everywhere present at the same moment; and the Psalmist says, “Whither shall I flee from thy presence?” [Psalm 139:7]. He is present with all his creations through his influence, through his government, spirit and power, but he himself is a personage of tabernacle, and we are made after his likeness" (DBY, 24).

God is spirit. He is not a man in a physical body.

seven7up
05-07-2014, 11:37 PM
In a spiritual sense in that He created our spirits. In the same metaphorical sense as Euclid was the "Father" of geometry.

That is your uninspired opinion, as there is a very direct comparison to what kind of sense we are to understand God as our Father:


He did not create the Son. He created us.

The Son was "begotten", in a spiritual sense. All the nations of the earth are the "offspring" of God, in a spiritual sense (Acts 17:29). Thus God is "the God of the spirits of all flesh" (Numbers 27:16) in a spiritual sense. Is there any comparison made to this spiritual sense in which we consider God our Father? Try this:

"We have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of our Spirits and live?" (Hebrews 12:9)


He is the prototokos, which here emphasizes His pre-eminence over all creation, not a numerical order of His "birth". That's why, in Col 1:15, He is called "prototokos pases ktiseos" or "firstborn of all creation". If we look at Jeremiah 31:9, we see an example which really shows how the most prominent to God was actually called "my firstborn" (Ephraim). Although Manassah was actually the firstborn child (Genesis 41:50-52), God chose Ephraim and thus says "as for Ephraim, he is my firstborn" (Jer. 31:9). If we take your numeric order literally, ...

You are correct. The "order" isn't necessary. Usually, it actually was the first person in numeric order, but there were some exceptions, which you pointed out. However, you are missing the point: that the prototokos is "chosen" from among other "fellows" ... the other "sons".

7UP: By right in the Monarchy, this gives Jesus the position of power and authority. God the Father spiritually begat this unique Son into a position of "pre-eminence" which is his "inheritance" because Jesus is the First born (firstbegotten). All that the Father has was given to the Son as the creation, and then it is to be glorified/resurrected and presented again in the "new creation". The correct rendering of verse 4 is given above. Jesus was elevated and "became" better than the angels and "by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they." This is clearly comparing Jesus to the other angels.


Yes, comparing Him to them because the Jews were worshipping the angels instead of their rightful King. But it in no way EQUATES them.

I never claimed that they were equal. Jesus was superior. That is why he was chosen/anointed from among the sons of God.


Jesus is not considered of the same species as those whom God "makes His angels winds, And His ministers a flame of fire". The writer is stressing the different roles that the Son plays and the angels play. He is not saying they are the same species.

We are all spirits Bill. Our spirit is our true self. Before Jesus entered mortality, he was a spirit. After he died (before the resurrection) his spirit still existed and was a messenger. Angels are spirits. You and I and every other single person are spirits. Your assumption that these "sons of God" are a different species is nothing but myth.

7UP: The LDS position is that, by nature, Jesus Christ had the inherent characteristics of Deity. In other words, Jesus was a perfect/flawless intelligence from all eternity.


And thus, not at all like His Father or us, who all had/have to be granted our perfection based on another's righteousness.

You are wrong Bill. The theory, from the moment that Joseph suggested it, was that Jesus was following the footsteps of God the Father, doing what God the Father had done. I can demonstrate that to you on another thread if you would like.

7UP: ... as the firstbegotten in spirit, power and authority had to be bestowed upon him, and it was.


Sorry, but no. There are several times where a literal "first born" child did not receive God's title of "first born".

Your appeal to exceptions to the rule does not help you very much in your argument here. Especially when you realize that God is choosing from among sons either way.

7UP: He was chosen and called by the Father a to be the Creator of the physical Universe, and to become the Only Begotten Son according to the flesh.


I have no problem with this statement. But, again, this does not imply that there were other options to choose from, nor that the Son and angels (or the bene elohim) were "offspring" in the same manner.

Why do you assume that they were not "offspring" in the same manner? They are all spirits. We are all spirits The difference is that Jesus was a perfect spirit and the others were not. We are not.

7UP: So, the chapter makes perfect sense from this position.


No it doesn't. It makes Jesus "just another angel" ...

Not "just another angel". Jesus, from his eternal intelligence, is Deity by nature. Jesus was superior in every way. The other sons of God were all imperfect/flawed/ignorant/etc. Hebrews 1 explains how Jesus was superior, unique, chosen, etc. There is no distinction of "species" as you claim.

7UP: By inheriting the name of the Father,


He inherited the name/title "King of the Jews"

Again, for Jesus to "inherit" the title, then that means the Father had the same title. You are making an incoherent claim. Your assertion that Jesus had to die in order to become king is nonsense. “Jehovah is King forever and ever.”—Ps. 10:16.

7UP: and being called from among his fellows to become the Savior of the world, it was decreed that the other sons of God would worship Jesus, because Jesus was to become their Redeemer, and was given power over death. This is possible because of His flawless spirit and inherent characteristics of Deity, he would not sin.


Again, the Jews were His "fellows", not the gentiles, and certainly not the angels.

"Having become so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they." (Heb 1:4)

Your denial on this is mind-boggling. Who are "they" in this verse? The Jews? That is ridiculous Bill. The context is clearly speaking of the angels, the sons of God. God the Father was establishing a unique relationship with Jesus, a position which was not given to the other spirits.

7UP: Hebrews 1 is teaching a kind of subordinationism was found in the early Christian Church before the Trinity dogma was invented, and it is consistent with the LDS position.


It was teaching no such thing. It was teaching the Kingship of Jesus over Israel.

Look again Bill. It was teaching the superiority of Jesus over the other spirits (angels / sons of God). Your attempt to limit the scope of the Kingship of Jesus to just "the Jews" is not going to work. Anybody at all can look at the concept of the passage and see that the scope is much larger than that. it is Heavenly, not earthly. It is Universal, not local. The section we are looking at is introduced with God "Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Jesus was appointed heir of ALL THINGS. Not just heir of a single nation, the Jews. After speaking of Jesus being "anointed" from from his "fellows", verse 10 states: "And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands". The scope is larger than you claim.

7UP: In the early second century, the Shepherd of Hermas spoke of the Holy Spirit as “the angel of the prophetic Spirit” and Jesus as the “‘glorious...angel’ or ‘most venerable...angel.’” Justin Martyr in the mid-second century, wrote that Jesus is “another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel.” He is “distinct from Him who made all things,—numerically, I mean, not in will.” Also, Justin wrote “We reverence and worship Him (the Father) and the Son who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of other good angels who are about Him and are made quite like Him, and the Prophetic Spirit.”


The context here is not the number of gods, but the operation of the persons with each other. Justin was discussing with Trypho the impossibility of a strictly unipersonal monotheistic God when the scriptures say that He is not unipersonal. Justin says later “For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God.” Justin never directly mentions that there is only one God because Trypho and he already agree on it. What He is arguing for is that there are multiple persons in the one God, and that the Son was who appeared to the Partiarchs.

His words and doctrine matches LDS teachings far closer than they match your "Trinity" views. The Trinity had not yet been invented. Read it again, including the quote from Justin that you yourself provided. You will find no concept of God being a "single essence". You find Jesus being referred to as an Angel and "another God". Just as I have explained, the "other angels" are referred to as those who are "fellows" who reverence Jesus: "the host of other good angels who are about Him and are made quite like Him".

7UP: All of it makes Biblical sense, especially when you consider the two scriptures that I provided for you, where Jesus is called a "Morning Star / Son of the Morning". This is an angelic title.


No it is not. It is a description of the amount of glory radiating from someone. ... In fact, this glory is to be given to Christians who overcome the world (See Rev 2:28)

The "sons of the morning" and the "morning stars" are very clearly representative of ANGELS in the Biblical text. They are the "sons of God." Jesus is known by this title as well, but only more exalted and "brighter", so to speak. Rev 2:28 has Jesus referring to Himself, the morning star—that is, Jesus will give to us Himself, He being "the morning star" (see Rev 22:16). The idea is that we will reflect His perfect brightness, he shall shine like Him, the morning star, and share His kingly glory. None of your deflecting can change the fact that these titles refer to the same kind of being.

7UP: As you and I both know, Lucifer was an angel who is also called a 'son of the morning' or 'morning star'. Indeed there were many, many "sons of the morning" who are the "sons of God".


As reflections of God's glory, they were radiant beings, ...

No doubt.

The strength of the LDS position is far better than you are willing to admit.

-7up

seven7up
05-08-2014, 12:02 AM
There are different versions of the "first vision" in which he contradicts his own "testimony".


Right. They contradict. Just like Matthew, Mark, Luke and John "contradict" each other. Oh, and stop trying to change the subject.



God is spirit.

So are you. So are angels. So is Jesus. We are all spirits. Do you really think you can skirt over this topic when debating me?

in 1 Corinthians 2:11, Paul wrote about "the spirit of man and the Spirit of God." Elsewhere he spoke of the resurrection of the body and then noted that it is a "spiritual" body (1 Corinthians 15:44-46). He also said things like, "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you" (Romans 8:9).

So, you cannot throw in verses like John 4:24 in isolation and attempt to claim that it means what you want it to mean.

We are all spirit:

God is "the God of the spirits of all flesh" (Numbers 16:22) (Numbers 27:16)

Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of our Spirits and live? (Hebrews 12:9)

1 Cor 6:17 "But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him."

Also consider the words of Jesus: Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7"Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'…

Tell me Cow Poke, does John 3:6 teach that when we are "born again" or "born of the Spirit", we no longer have a physical body?




God... is not a man in a physical body.

Then you deny the truthfulness of Col 2:9

For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,

For in Christ lives all the fullness of God in a human body.

For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,

For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,

For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the God bodily.


-7up

Cow Poke
05-08-2014, 02:29 AM
Then you deny the truthfulness of Col 2:9

This is an outright lie. I believe Smith was a fraud, and the Book of Mormon is a false witness. I firmly and clearly deny the truthfulness of Joseph Smith.

Cow Poke
05-08-2014, 02:55 AM
Then you deny the truthfulness of Col 2:9

I believe Col 2:9 in CONTEXT, not just as a "proof verse" yanked out by a follower of a false prophet.

[2:1]*For I would that ye knew what great conflict I have for you, and for them at Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen my face in the flesh; [2]*That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ; [3]*In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

And then there's a warning....

*And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words.

I believe Smith was all about beguiling his followers with enticing words.

*For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ. [6]*As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him: [7]*Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.

This is all about Christ. It flat out says so. Then more warnings against deception:

*Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

And THEN, after the warnings of deception, we have the truth about Christ:

*For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

This refers to Christ, not God, regardless of how you want to twist it.

Bill the Cat
05-08-2014, 08:08 AM
I never even implied that Constantine cared what the conclusion was. He forced a resolution to the conflict so that he could maintain power.

He did not FORCE a resolution. He allowed it to take place. And the conflict had nothing to do with Constantine's power. He was Emperor of Rome regardless of which side won, or if neither side won.



The result was a compromise between contradictory positions, and thus the incoherent dogma was invented with new terms and new ways of defining words.

No. The result was the wholesale rejection of Arius' position in favor of the historical doctrine taught by the majority of the church that did not run after Arius.



"Ousia" was never applied to any member of the Godhead in the Bible or applied to God in general at all.

So? The Bible never says man has a thyroid gland either. Clarifying statements and terminology are a natural evolution of human language patterns.


Even so, if ousia originally means "what a person has" or even "a person's characteristics", then even LDS would say that God the Father has the same "ousia" as the Son. Then the creeds changed the definition of the word.

It didn't "originally mean" that.

From: David Hamlyn - Metaphysics - Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1984 p. 60.

"For Aristotle, 'substances' are the things which exist in their own right, both the logically ultimate subjects of predication and the ultimate objects of scientific inquiry. They are the unified material objects, as well as the natural stuffs, identifiable in sense-experience, each taken to be a member of a natural species with its 'form' and functional essence. Entities in other categories -- qualities, actions, relations and so forth -- are treated as dependent on, if not just abstracted aspects of, these independent realities.



LDS can say they believe in "one God", and as I have demonstrated, we use "oneness" of persons as it is used and understood everywhere else in the Biblical text.

No you don't. You use "oneness" as it is used in CERTAIN places where functional relationships are described. You completely ignore the "oneness" when it comes to the places where the actual numerical values are concerned.



There are problems when making a blanket claim that "God is unchangeable". Therefore, it may be necessary to add to the language "unchangeable in His eternal Godhead".

Because that is what makes Him unchangeable and also why. It is because He IS God that He is unchangeable in His person.


As we know, in the example of Jesus Christ, we see how Deity can become flesh, grow into an adult in mortality, die, resurrect to an exalted state, etc. Those could be considered "changes" in a certain sense.

Unnecessary changes that do not affect His Godhood. Had Jesus never taken on an additional nature, He would still be God. And even after taking on the additional human nature, He is still God. Hence He is unchangeable.


So, what do you mean by unchangeable "in His eternal Godhead"?

Meaning He did not "earn" Godhood, was not "promoted" to Godhood, was not "exalted" to Godhood, etc.


The problem I have with the "unchangeable" term is this: While the scriptures use the idea of unchangeable referring to God in terms of keeping promises and so forth, Trinitarianism attempts to take the "unchangeable" concept to some kind of metaphysical sense.

Psalm 102 shows that scripture uses His unchangeability to contrast with creations changeability.

There is a God who will never cease to exist. But He is more than eternal. He is absolutely unchanging. Of old Thou didst found the earth; And the heavens are the work of Thy hands. Even they will perish, but Thou dost endure; And all of them will wear out like a garment; Like clothing Thou wilt change them, and they will be changed. But Thou art the same, And Thy years will not come to an end (verses 25-27).



That goes far beyond the warrant of the Biblical text and appears to be borrowed from the Greek philosophical view of God, (ie the unmoved mover).

The concept predates the Babylonian captivity, as seen in Psa 102, so your claim falls well short.



The creeds often say that Jesus is "begotten, not made". Yet again, the definition of "begotten" must be changed entirely.

No it doesn't. Ginomai simply means to bring something forth. It can refer to birth, or something as mundane as taking out a scroll from a box. It does not imply that the thing brought forth is even related to the thing bringing it forth, or the thing it was brought forth from. In fact, Jesus' miracles were said to be ginomai, or "brought forth" from Him. The difference between "begotten" and "made" is simple. Jesus alone was begotten of the Father, meaning He was brought forth from within the Father, while humans were made by God, not coming from within Him.


The concept of 3 centers of consciousness is a relatively new concept in Trinitarian theory, and was actually a move closer to the Mormon position. For starters, IF God the Father is literally omnipresent, then how can such a being have a "center" of consciousness?

Because it is not a location. Just as the "center of your being" is not literally the midpoint of the diameter of you.



The very concept of 3 centers of consciousness was met and opposed by many Trinitarians as a form of "tritheism".

Because they didn't understand it, just like you don't.


3 centers of consciousness implies that it is not a "single substance", but instead 3 persons, who are separate in a certain sense (separate consciousnesses) with the same characteristics.

No. The characteristics are different too. The single substance neither grows or shrinks.


They are united in a perichoresis and harmony of will. A special communication between them.

Yet there is not one without the other two. You can not slice one off from existence and be left with 2/3 of the original. Nor can you add to them. They are complete, and have always been complete.


That is an LDS point of view.

No it isn't. The LDS point of view considers "GOD" to be a job title, not a reality of existence. Each successive "god" starts out as "not God" and works their way up to godhood.


Welcome to the club. Of course you cannot say that, because you have already defined it as a "single Being". Again, contradictions arise.

Only when you don't even understand the basics.



It also depends on how you define "monotheism", which is also a term not found in the scriptures.

:ahem: Neither is the term "incarnation". But 1 Tim 1:17 and Jude 1:25 use mono sophos theos, so the therm has warrant from the scriptures.


It just goes back to the concept of "one God". In what sense are they "one"? Jews will argue with you and say that you are not a "monotheist".

Nonsense poopy pants.



I agree that Jesus is "fully God".

But He was not always according to your religion.



... During his pre-mortal life Jesus Christ rose to the status of Godhood
LDS Conference Report, October 1949, p. 69




so the Father before Him had trodden the same path of progression from manhood to Godhood
The Essential James E. Talmage, edited by James P. Harris, p. 132



Encyclopedia of Mormonism
Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus Christ attained godhood (see Christology) and that he marked the path and led the way for others likewise to become exalted divine beings by following him

So, Jesus was not always God in Mormonism.


Nevertheless, the Father is greater than the Son in glory and authority.

A function of their being, not an ontological divide.


So, that puts a damper on the "co-equal" notion.

Only for the strawman you keep beating up.


As I said, the definition of co-equal is "equal with one another; having the same rank or importance". However, it appears that the Father has a higher rank than the Son.

So? We have 3 co-equal branches of government, but each has a different function. And we only have one government.


You gave an example of your wife being subservient to you, but that is a bad example, because you and your wife are not supposedly the same being.

No analogy is perfect.




The LDS view is that Jesus, for example, had a perfect/flawless intelligence from eternity with the characteristics of Deity.

Not according to BYU, Hunter, or Talmage.


However, does your definition of "God" require the concept of power and authority? We see that power and authority is "given" from the Father to the Son.

So? It was "given" to the Apostles too.



We have 3 full glasses of water.

Fail.


How many glasses of water do you have? You have 3 glasses of water. You can even say that each glass of water has the same substance. But I don't even think you could accept that analogy. Can you?

No. Because if I boil one, there would only remain 2 glasses of water and the volume of water would be reduced by 1/3.



I agree that they cannot be "taken away" from being God.

Even in the hypothetical situation of God sinning?



Certainly we cannot become the same Being. That is impossible. Just as what you are proposing is impossible We can become "like" them though.

As a reflection of who they are. We can not become WHAT they are.

Sparko
05-08-2014, 08:27 AM
My other question that I have never gotten a satisfactory answer to: If man has to go through mortality, get sealed to a mortal woman, be a good mormon, etc, to become exalted into a God, then why didn't Jesus or the Holy Spirit have to? Jesus was a god in his premortal existence and did not get a body till later. The holy spirit still hasn't gotten a body. How are they gods? According to the LDS even the Father had to be a man and all that before becoming a God.

Cow Poke
05-08-2014, 08:40 AM
My other question that I have never gotten a satisfactory answer to: If man has to go through mortality, get sealed to a mortal woman, be a good mormon, etc, to become exalted into a God, then why didn't Jesus or the Holy Spirit have to? Jesus was a god in his premortal existence and did not get a body till later. The holy spirit still hasn't gotten a body. How are they gods? According to the LDS even the Father had to be a man and all that before becoming a God.

Have you ever wondered if Smith was a God of a planet yet? And is OUR Heaven the "common Heaven" for ALL the planets? Or does each planet have its own Heaven. Cause you can't get in OUR Heaven without Smith punching your ticket, so if he's the God of his OWN planet.... :huh:

Sparko
05-08-2014, 09:03 AM
Have you ever wondered if Smith was a God of a planet yet? And is OUR Heaven the "common Heaven" for ALL the planets? Or does each planet have its own Heaven. Cause you can't get in OUR Heaven without Smith punching your ticket, so if he's the God of his OWN planet.... :huh:
It is all so confuserating. :dizzy:

Cow Poke
05-08-2014, 09:17 AM
It is all so confuserating. :dizzy:

Which is what you get when a man claims to hear directly from God, suckers a bunch of people into following him, then spews forth "revelations" without thinking them through. God is not the author of confusion.

Bill the Cat
05-08-2014, 09:53 AM
That is your uninspired opinion, as there is a very direct comparison to what kind of sense we are to understand God as our Father:

Yes. He is our creator.



The Son was "begotten", in a spiritual sense.

And was the ONLY begotten in the spiritual sense


All the nations of the earth are the "offspring" of God, in a spiritual sense (Acts 17:29).

I've already addressed this. This is not talking about us being begotten by God the way the Son was. As I stated, Paul had just finished saying "for in Him we live and move and exist". Since He created us, He is our Father.


Thus God is "the God of the spirits of all flesh" (Numbers 27:16) in a spiritual sense.

Because He created our spirits. He did not beget us.


Is there any comparison made to this spiritual sense in which we consider God our Father? Try this:

"We have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of our Spirits and live?" (Hebrews 12:9)

This is not a direct comparison or claim that God sired our spirits with a fictional "Heavenly Mother". In fact, the writer of Hebrews had just finished saying:

Hebrews 12:6 For those whom the Lord loves He disciplines, And He scourges every son whom He receives.”
Hebrews 12:7 It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons

Notice the terms "whom He receives" and "as sons". These are terms of adoption, meaning that God being the "father of their spirits" referred to them being adopted (received) into His family (as sons).

[quote] You are correct. The "order" isn't necessary. Usually, it actually was the first person in numeric order, but there were some exceptions, which you pointed out. However, you are missing the point: that the prototokos is "chosen" from among other "fellows" ... the other "sons".


No. From among His bretheren, the Jews. Again, you miss Moses' proclamation. There is yet another that proves the Jews are who God was referring to when He mentioned "fellows".

Micah 5:2 "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel.


7UP: By right in the Monarchy, this gives Jesus the position of power and authority. God the Father spiritually begat this unique Son into a position of "pre-eminence" which is his "inheritance" because Jesus is the First born (firstbegotten). All that the Father has was given to the Son as the creation, and then it is to be glorified/resurrected and presented again in the "new creation".

It was not given until the Ascension, not at creation. See Dan 7



I never claimed that they were equal. Jesus was superior. That is why he was chosen/anointed from among the sons of God.

I never said you claimed they were equal. I said you EQUATED them, meaning the Son was the same species as the angels, which the scripture does not do.



We are all spirits Bill. Our spirit is our true self. Before Jesus entered mortality, he was a spirit. After he died (before the resurrection) his spirit still existed and was a messenger. Angels are spirits. You and I and every other single person are spirits. Your assumption that these "sons of God" are a different species is nothing but myth.

Ecc 3:21 Who knows that the spirit of man ascends upward and the spirit of the beast descends downward to the earth

So, are we now the same species as animals? They have spirits too according to Ecclesiastes...


You are wrong Bill. The theory, from the moment that Joseph suggested it, was that Jesus was following the footsteps of God the Father, doing what God the Father had done. I can demonstrate that to you on another thread if you would like.


I've already addressed this in another post.


Your appeal to exceptions to the rule does not help you very much in your argument here. Especially when you realize that God is choosing from among sons either way.

No, YOU assume that the bene elohim are sons the same way The Son is. God had ONE option, and that was The Son, His Wisdom, His Word.



Why do you assume that they were not "offspring" in the same manner?

Because they were MADE, while The Son was begotten.


They are all spirits. We are all spirits The difference is that Jesus was a perfect spirit and the others were not. We are not.

Animals have spirits too.


Not "just another angel". Jesus, from his eternal intelligence, is Deity by nature.

No He wasn't according to Mormon leaders. He had to EARN it.


Jesus was superior in every way. The other sons of God were all imperfect/flawed/ignorant/etc. Hebrews 1 explains how Jesus was superior, unique, chosen, etc. There is no distinction of "species" as you claim.

Nor is there any conflating the two as one species.


Again, for Jesus to "inherit" the title, then that means the Father had the same title.

He did. God is King of the Jews


You are making an incoherent claim. Your assertion that Jesus had to die in order to become king is nonsense. “Jehovah is King forever and ever.”—Ps. 10:16.

Micah 5:2 "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel."

Luke 1:30 The angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God.
Luke 1:31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus.
Luke 1:32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David;
Luke 1:33 and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.”

It only becomes incoherent when you believe the lie that Jehovah is solely Jesus pre-incarnate.




"Having become so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they." (Heb 1:4)

Your denial on this is mind-boggling. Who are "they" in this verse?

The angels that the Jews were worshipping as their king.



The Jews? That is ridiculous Bill.

I never claimed that this was talking about Jesus having a better name than the Jews.


The context is clearly speaking of the angels, the sons of God.

:argh: It is speaking of why Jesus qualified to be their King, and thus qualified to be worshipped by them INSTEAD of the mere angels who were nothing more than God's servants. The writer of Hebrews was trying to get them to see that angels were not to be worshipped, but their King, who came from them (Hence the title of the book is called HEBREWS) as prophesied, was worthy to be worshipped. The proof was that He came from the Jews, as foretold, and was given their own royal proclamations of kingship by God Himself. How YOU keep mistaking that is what is mind boggling. The context is clear. You don't worship ANY angels. You worship ONLY your King, who is not an angel, He is a Jew.


God the Father was establishing a unique relationship with Jesus, a position which was not given to the other spirits.

Yes. He was begotten, not made. All other spirits are made.


Look again Bill. It was teaching the superiority of Jesus over the other spirits (angels / sons of God).

IT DOES NOT SAY OTHER IN THIS PASSAGE!!

Is that more clear??


Your attempt to limit the scope of the Kingship of Jesus to just "the Jews" is not going to work.

:ahem: Sure it isn't. That's why God continually promised them a King from within their peoples, and the book is called Hebrews... :ahem:


Anybody at all can look at the concept of the passage and see that the scope is much larger than that.

Only if they have Mormon blinders on.


it is Heavenly, not earthly. It is Universal, not local.

It is temporal.


The section we are looking at is introduced with God "Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Meaning that Jesus was far more than just a human being trying to CLAIM the Messiahship.


Jesus was appointed heir of ALL THINGS.

As Messiah. Hence their King.


Not just heir of a single nation, the Jews.

All believers are of Israel. Paul makes that clear. We gentiles are grafted in, but still members, and thus He is our King too.


After speaking of Jesus being "anointed" from from his "fellows", verse 10 states: "And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands". The scope is larger than you claim.

That part is talking about how the Son is God, and that He is eternal, while the works of His hand will perish. It is a claim to His divinity, and thus, another proof that He alone should be worshipped as King.


His words and doctrine matches LDS teachings far closer than they match your "Trinity" views.

Wait... wasn't Justin part of the "apostasy"? I guess you get to pick and choose which things of his you agree with, and toss the rest under the bus, huh?


The Trinity had not yet been invented.

There was no "inventing" it. Justin was not claiming two separate exalted humans who attained godhood at separate times in a premortal life. He was discussing how the Son was not the Father.


Read it again, including the quote from Justin that you yourself provided. You will find no concept of God being a "single essence".

Again, you do not dictate the context. Justin was showing Trypho and his associates that the Son was not the Father. Essence was in no way even a consideration.


You find Jesus being referred to as an Angel

You will also find John the Baptist's messengers referred to as aggelos in Luke 7:24.


and "another God".

An unfortunate limit in available terminology. But this does not apply ontological "otherness" for Justin. What he is saying (in perfect conformity with substantive Christian orthodoxy, given the undeveloped terminology of his time) is that the Logos is not merely some kind of "emanation" of God the Father (like the Shekinah Glory in the Old Testament, which is what Trypho the Jew, following Philo, had in mind via the sunlight from the sun analogy), but something/Someone distinct from the Father as a Person (a word Justin would not have used) in His own right, but dependent on the same Divine nature as the Father at the same time. The Logos as a torch was, for Justin, an image to convey how the torch is a separate flame from the flame that "begot" it, but still of the same nature as the original flame (that is, God the Father). This is all that he is saying.



Just as I have explained, the "other angels" are referred to as those who are "fellows" who reverence Jesus: "the host of other good angels who are about Him and are made quite like Him".

Yet another context error and omission of a key fact. Justin had just mentioned the fallen angels, which he calls demons in 1 Apol 5, when he is talking about who we Christians worship. He says this of the Son:

...who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him... (1 Apol 6). It means that the Son not only taught us, but the host of the other good angels (meaning not the demons he had just mentioned), to worship God.




The "sons of the morning" and the "morning stars" are very clearly representative of ANGELS in the Biblical text.

No. They are descriptions of the glory that angels and Christ possess.


They are the "sons of God." Jesus is known by this title as well, but only more exalted and "brighter", so to speak. Rev 2:28 has Jesus referring to Himself, the morning star—that is, Jesus will give to us Himself, He being "the morning star" (see Rev 22:16).

Believers already have Him. How can He give us Himself if we already possess Him? No. The "morning star" is the glory of God which outshines all other glories.


The idea is that we will reflect His perfect brightness, he shall shine like Him, the morning star, and share His kingly glory.

Exactly. But that will not make us angels or God.


None of your deflecting can change the fact that these titles refer to the same kind of being.

No it doesn't. Not even close. None of your eisegesis can refute the clear facts that The Son is not the same species as the angels, nor are they the same species as us.


The strength of the LDS position is far better than you are willing to admit.

-7up

No it isn't. It is a complete and utter mess. And we haven't even really discussed it as much as the biblical position held by the orthodox Christians here.

seven7up
05-13-2014, 01:13 AM
7UP: Then you deny the truthfulness of Col 2:9

For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,

For in Christ lives all the fullness of God in a human body.

For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,

For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,

For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the God bodily.


I believe Col 2:9 in CONTEXT, not just as a "proof verse" yanked out by a follower of a false prophet. ....

*For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

This refers to Christ, not God, regardless of how you want to twist it.


Of course it is talking about Christ. I even provided the first two translations that specify that it is speaking of Jesus Christ.

Are you now claiming that Christ is not God? Does Christ not possess the "fulness of Deity"?


It appears that you missed the point I was making entirely, namely:

You believe that an eternal and essential characteristic of God/Deity is literal omnipresence. If that is true, then the the "fulness of Deity" cannot dwell within Christ (i.e. bodily).

You contradict yourself by saying that it is true for Jesus to be "fully God", while out the other corner of your mouth you claim that God the Father cannot be "Deity" if He dwells bodily.


-7up

seven7up
05-13-2014, 01:57 AM
7UP: I never even implied that Constantine cared what the conclusion was. He forced a resolution to the conflict so that he could maintain power.


He did not FORCE a resolution. He allowed it to take place. And the conflict had nothing to do with Constantine's power. He was Emperor of Rome regardless of which side won, or if neither side won.

Constantine's power was to be diminished if the sects remained divided. Don't pretend to discount Constantine's interest in resolving these issues and the fact that he invoked the council for his own purposes. Again, not that he cared about the specific results of dogma, but instead to political ramifications of a united position.



7UP: The result was a compromise between contradictory positions, and thus the incoherent dogma was invented with new terms and new ways of defining words.


No. The result was the wholesale rejection of Arius' position in favor of the historical doctrine taught by the majority of the church that did not run after Arius.

I hate to inform you Bill, but you won't get away with waving away these issues. Not with me.

One purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements arising from within the Church of Alexandria over the nature of the Son in his relationship to the Father: in particular, whether the Son had been 'begotten' by the Father. Within the Ex Nihilo framework, the idea of Jesus being "begotten" would imply that the Son was not eternal. The idea that the Son is eternal implies that he was not begotten, (again, if you hold to creation "out of nothing"). Therefore, you have two contradictory positions. The result was an entirely unbiblical and invented concept, which is the idea that the Son is being constantly and eternally begotten; continuously issued forth from the Father.



7up: "Ousia" was never applied to any member of the Godhead in the Bible or applied to God in general at all.


So? The Bible never says man has a thyroid gland either.

The thyroid gland is not part of your religious doctrine about God, which supposedly is Bible based. So.


Clarifying statements and terminology are a natural evolution of human language patterns.

This was a leap beyond that. And you know it.

7UP: Even so, if ousia originally means "what a person has" or even "a person's characteristics", then even LDS would say that God the Father has the same "ousia" as the Son. Then the creeds changed the definition of the word.


It didn't "originally mean" that.

From: David Hamlyn - Metaphysics - Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1984 p. 60.

"For Aristotle, 'substances' are the things which exist in their own right, both the logically ultimate subjects of predication and the ultimate objects of scientific inquiry. They are the unified material objects, as well as the natural stuffs, identifiable in sense-experience, each taken to be a member of a natural species with its 'form' and functional essence. Entities in other categories -- qualities, actions, relations and so forth -- are treated as dependent on, if not just abstracted aspects of, these independent realities.

From the same source: The Greek word which Aristotle used -- 'ousia' -- and which is traditionally translated 'substance' has none of the suggestions that the Latin etymology of 'substance' provides, but has additional suggestions of its own, particularly a connexion with being. (The feminine present participle of the verb 'to be' in Greek is ousia; ousia has the form of an abstract noun and is for that reason naturally to be translated 'being' or 'beingness', but Aristotle often uses the word with an article to indicate a particular kind of being, a particular kind of thing.)"


7UP: LDS can say they believe in "one God", and as I have demonstrated, we (LDS/Mormons) use "oneness" of persons as it is used and understood everywhere else in the Biblical text.


No you don't. You use "oneness" as it is used in CERTAIN places where functional relationships are described.

I use "oneness" as it is used in EVERY place in the Bible where functional relationships are described. Including it being applied to the relationship between the Father and the Son. I will give you an example again, though I am sure that Christ's words must be painful to your ears:

"that they all may be one, as Thou Father art in me, and I in Thee; that they also in us may be one, that the world may believe that Thou didst send me. `And I, the glory that thou hast given to me, have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one (John 17:21-22)

This is referring specifically to the kind of oneness found within the Godhead.

In contrast, you have verses which are comparing the God of Israel to the false idols (non-existent "gods") of other nations, which quite frankly is just an example of you taking a concept out of its context and attempting to apply it beyond the warrant of the text and into a completely different theological arena.


-7up

seven7up
05-13-2014, 02:51 AM
7up: There are problems when making a blanket claim that "God is unchangeable". Therefore, it may be necessary to add to the language "unchangeable in His eternal Godhead".


Because that is what makes Him unchangeable and also why. It is because He IS God that He is unchangeable in His person.

"And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men." (Luke 2:52)

Again, did Jesus Christ change as a person when he was growing up in mortality? You see, when the Biblical text refers to God being "unchangeable", the context is in reference to morality, faithfulness, truthfulness, consistency in God's dealings with creation, etc.

7UP: As we know, in the example of Jesus Christ, we see how Deity can become flesh, grow into an adult in mortality, die, resurrect to an exalted state, etc. Those could be considered "changes" in a certain sense.


Unnecessary changes that do not affect His Godhood. Had Jesus never taken on an additional nature, He would still be God. And even after taking on the additional human nature, He is still God. Hence He is unchangeable.

Did Jesus have a literally omnipresent nature prior to entering mortality? Does taking on an "additional nature" not constitute as a "change"?

7UP: The problem I have with the "unchangeable" term is this: While the scriptures use the idea of unchangeable referring to God in terms of keeping promises and so forth, Trinitarianism attempts to take the "unchangeable" concept to some kind of metaphysical sense.


Psalm 102 shows that scripture uses His unchangeability to contrast with creations changeability.

Of old Thou didst found the earth; And the heavens are the work of Thy hands. Even they will perish, but Thou dost endure; And all of them will wear out like a garment; Like clothing Thou wilt change them, and they will be changed. But Thou art the same, And Thy years will not come to an end (verses 25-27).

The same "unchangeability" could be considered for an "angel", from your point of view. Would you consider an angel to be a spirit, who remains a spirit from before creation even until after the new heaven and new earth are created? (Even if billions of years pass?) Again, from what you are contrasting to "physical" reality would apply to Jesus Christ, in the resurrection, for example. The old "body" passed away. But how about the new immortal body, the new heaven and new Earth? Will it endure forever?


7UP: That goes far beyond the warrant of the Biblical text and appears to be borrowed from the Greek philosophical view of God, (ie the unmoved mover).


The concept predates the Babylonian captivity, as seen in Psa 102, so your claim falls well short.

You are claiming something quite beyond what Psalm 102 claims. You are talking about some kind of unchanging, ethereal, metaphysical substance. Some kind of disembodied mind which is "invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible".

7UP: The concept of 3 centers of consciousness is a relatively new concept in Trinitarian theory, and was actually a move closer to the Mormon position. For starters, IF God the Father is literally omnipresent, then how can such a being have a "center" of consciousness?


Because it is not a location.

Did Jesus claim that God the Father was not in any location? Or even the Holy Spirit for that matter? Why would Jesus have to "send" the Holy Spirit if it is already literally everywhere? Did Jesus say, "Our Father, who art everywhere..." ? Jesus said, "hold me not, for I have not yet ascended to my Father". A nonsense statement if God is literally everywhere. You have to add your own little theories (not found in the text) in order to get around that one.

7UP: The very concept of 3 centers of consciousness was met and opposed by many Trinitarians as a form of "tritheism".


Because they didn't understand it, just like you don't.

You don't understand your version of it either. You simply accept that it is a contradiction.

I understand the LDS version.

7UP: 3 centers of consciousness implies that it is not a "single substance", but instead 3 persons, who are separate in a certain sense (separate consciousnesses) with the same characteristics.



No. The characteristics are different too. The single substance neither grows or shrinks.

So, you have 3 persons, who are each "fully God", yet literally only one God, but each of them have different characteristics, yet they are a single substance? Sound right?

7UP: They are united in a perichoresis and harmony of will. A special communication between them.


Yet there is not one without the other two. You can not slice one off from existence and be left with 2/3 of the original.

So, then each one is not fully God after all. Got it.


The LDS point of view considers "GOD" to be a job title, not a reality of existence.

We believe that God/Deity implies spiritual perfection, wisdom/knowledge, relationship, authority/power, etc. We believe that those persons who have these characteristics exist in reality, and we have specific relationships with them, and they have relationships with each other.


-7up

Bill the Cat
05-13-2014, 08:13 AM
"And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men." (Luke 2:52)

Again, did Jesus Christ change as a person when he was growing up in mortality?

No. He remained fully God. While some of His attributes were veiled by His humanity, He still possessed them. When Moses' face was veiled, it still existed behind that veil, but it was not viewable.


You see, when the Biblical text refers to God being "unchangeable", the context is in reference to morality, faithfulness, truthfulness, consistency in God's dealings with creation, etc.

Partially. It also deals with His not needing anything, not increasing in His godhood, etc.


Did Jesus have a literally omnipresent nature prior to entering mortality?

Yes


Does taking on an "additional nature" not constitute as a "change"?

No. It did not make Him "more" or "less" God.



Of old Thou didst found the earth; And the heavens are the work of Thy hands. Even they will perish, but Thou dost endure; And all of them will wear out like a garment; Like clothing Thou wilt change them, and they will be changed. But Thou art the same, And Thy years will not come to an end (verses 25-27).

The same "unchangeability" could be considered for an "angel", from your point of view. Would you consider an angel to be a spirit, who remains a spirit from before creation even until after the new heaven and new earth are created? (Even if billions of years pass?)

There is no evidence from scripture that angels will exist in the New Creation.


Again, from what you are contrasting to "physical" reality would apply to Jesus Christ, in the resurrection, for example. The old "body" passed away. But how about the new immortal body, the new heaven and new Earth? Will it endure forever?

As a creation of God, yes.



You are claiming something quite beyond what Psalm 102 claims.

No I am not. I am claiming that the concept of God being eternally existent is supported by Psalms 102, which predates any possible "Greek" influence.


You are talking about some kind of unchanging, ethereal, metaphysical substance. Some kind of disembodied mind which is "invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible".

Not here I am not. That's your straw you are burning.



Did Jesus claim that God the Father was not in any location?

David claimed that God was everywhere.


Or even the Holy Spirit for that matter? Why would Jesus have to "send" the Holy Spirit if it is already literally everywhere? Did Jesus say, "Our Father, who art everywhere..." ? Jesus said, "hold me not, for I have not yet ascended to my Father". A nonsense statement if God is literally everywhere. You have to add your own little theories (not found in the text) in order to get around that one.

The stupidity of this post shows quite clearly that you don't even want to TRY to understand our position, only to mock it. You don't care that we believe that heaven is the centrality of His presence, nor that heaven is not an actual physical location in our universe.


You don't understand your version of it either. You simply accept that it is a contradiction.

Absolutely false. I understand it pretty well.


I understand the LDS version.

So do I. And it is an absolute mess. And it is becoming high time I turn the tables on your polytheistic nonsense.


So, you have 3 persons, who are each "fully God", yet literally only one God, but each of them have different characteristics, yet they are a single substance? Sound right?

Yes. Perhaps if you learned something about Jewish Wisdom theology, you'd be able to understand it a bit better.



So, then each one is not fully God after all. Got it.

No, stupid. If each were NOT fully God, then you could cut one off and then only be left with 2/3 of the original size of God.




We believe that God/Deity implies spiritual perfection, wisdom/knowledge, relationship, authority/power, etc.

Those are some characteristics possessed by God, but they are consequences of His deity, not the creators of it. Do you understand the difference? In fact, man possesses wisdom, knowledge, relationships, authority, and power right now. That doesn't make us Gods right now, does it?



We believe that those persons who have these characteristics exist in reality, and we have specific relationships with them, and they have relationships with each other.

And that you too can attain their equal measure that the Father possesses.



Constantine's power was to be diminished if the sects remained divided.

He was Emperor of the Roman Empire. His power was not in jeopardy. He had just fought Licinius for control of the Empire and was solely interested in religious and civil peace. Arius had been anathemized a few years before, so the matter had already been decided, but Arius refused to step down. Constantine did not force any decision because the decision had been previously made. Your claim is false.


Don't pretend to discount Constantine's interest in resolving these issues and the fact that he invoked the council for his own purposes.

Oh, he was interested in civil accord as Emperor, to be sure. But he no more forced them to come than he forced a resolution. In fact, Eusebius says that the letters to the bishops were "politely begging" them to come, not demanding them.


Again, not that he cared about the specific results of dogma, but instead to political ramifications of a united position.

But he never "forced a resolution to the conflict" like you claimed. Another claim of yours debunked.



I hate to inform you Bill, but you won't get away with waving away these issues. Not with me.

I'm reporting the facts, dude.


One purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements arising from within the Church of Alexandria over the nature of the Son in his relationship to the Father: in particular, whether the Son had been 'begotten' by the Father.

It was not until Arius that this disagreement even arose. They were not competing positions. Arius' ideas were novel inventions of his own making that challenged the existing doctrines. There is no escaping that, nor is there any successful glossing over it either.


Within the Ex Nihilo framework, the idea of Jesus being "begotten" would imply that the Son was not eternal.

From ANY framework it would imply that.


The idea that the Son is eternal implies that he was not begotten, (again, if you hold to creation "out of nothing").

No it doesn't. It implies that time was not existent where the Son was begotten.


Therefore, you have two contradictory positions.

Only if you assume a temporality to God's existence, which the Jews did not.


The result was an entirely unbiblical and invented concept, which is the idea that the Son is being constantly and eternally begotten; continuously issued forth from the Father.

Then you are thoroughly ignorant of Jewish Wisdom theology which claims that God's Word and Wisdom are consistently being issued forth from God, and that God never lacked them. There was never a time when God lacked Wisdom or His Word.



The thyroid gland is not part of your religious doctrine about God, which supposedly is Bible based. So.

And it is not an exhaustive treaty on God's existence either. But what it gives us allows us to deduce other aspects.



This was a leap beyond that. And you know it.

It was a single step along a revealed path, and logically supported too.



From the same source: The Greek word which Aristotle used -- 'ousia' -- and which is traditionally translated 'substance' has none of the suggestions that the Latin etymology of 'substance' provides, but has additional suggestions of its own, particularly a connexion with being. (The feminine present participle of the verb 'to be' in Greek is ousia; ousia has the form of an abstract noun and is for that reason naturally to be translated 'being' or 'beingness', but Aristotle often uses the word with an article to indicate a particular kind of being, a particular kind of thing.)"

And none of that changes what I posted, that to Aristotle, attributes were not considered different substances. Wisdom is an attribute of God, and Jesus is that Wisdom, therefore, He is not a different ousia.



I use "oneness" as it is used in EVERY place in the Bible where functional relationships are described.

That's what I said. The "some places" refer to the functional relationship descriptions, but you ignore the "oneness" in relation to His existence and identity.


Including it being applied to the relationship between the Father and the Son. I will give you an example again, though I am sure that Christ's words must be painful to your ears:

"that they all may be one, as Thou Father art in me, and I in Thee; that they also in us may be one, that the world may believe that Thou didst send me. `And I, the glory that thou hast given to me, have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one (John 17:21-22)

This is referring specifically to the kind of oneness found within the Godhead.

In terms of functional relationship, yes.


In contrast, you have verses which are comparing the God of Israel to the false idols (non-existent "gods") of other nations,


Because 1) The "gods" of the other nations did not exist, and 2) Because Jehovah was the only God, the Jews were to worship Him alone. Period. Jehovah never EVER mentioned a God higher in authority than Him to the Jews.


which quite frankly is just an example of you taking a concept out of its context and attempting to apply it beyond the warrant of the text and into a completely different theological arena.

No. Your ignoring Jehovah's existence as the only God is you taking a steamroller and flattening it to an unrecognizable stain on the ground. Have some courage and answer these with Old Testament citations:

1) Who did Jehovah say was the God of the Jews?
2) Who did Jehovah tell the Jews to worship?
3) Did Jehovah ever allow the Jews to worship anyone else?

seven7up
05-13-2014, 10:04 PM
Here is a review of the view of God/Deity/Divinity according to the Greek philosophical monotheism:

Thales (546 B.C.) God is "mind" (nous).

Anaximander (532 B.C.) - the beginning and the fundamental substance (stoicheion) of things is an infinite something - "The Boundless" as he designates it. He also says the "apeiron", the absolute is the source of all things.Other elements are constantly being exchanged, but the Boundless cannot partake of this changeableness, or else it would pass away. The Boundless is not like the other elements. This Boundless is uncreated and indestructible, being itself primary. It has no cause, but causes all other things

Pythagoras (532 B.C.) - The ruler and cause (arche) of all things is one eternal God, unique, unmoving, wholly like himself and different from all else. Being is one and there can be none else.

Xenophanes (536 B.C.) - God is one and incorporeal. Neither in appearance nor in mind does he resemble mortals. God is without parts (homoion pantei) defined spherical and perceptive in all parts. The Unmoving, the effective cause, but most simply the existing one. There can only be one. He is neither boundless nor bound, neither the center, nor moving, nor motionless, etc. He is everywhere the same.

Melissus (440 B.C.) - If nothing exists there is nothing to talk about. If something exists it is either created or timeless. If created it must come out of something else. It cannot come out of what does not exist, yet neither can it come out of what does exist, therefore what exists has always existed. It is unperishable and uncreated, therefore it is boundless, and hence one, hence unmoving, since the infinite has nowhere to go. There is no empty space or the one would fill it.

Anaxagoras (428 B.C.) - no creation and no passing away, just an eternal mixing and reshuffling of elements. Nous came and gave structure to chaos. Nous is independent of all things. Only mind is unlimited and self-existent. It is the great mover, itself unmoved and invulnerable. Mind gives meaning, and hence being, to all things.

Empedocles (444 B.C.) - God has no human body parts, but he is sacred, ineffable, indescribable, Mind (Phren), filling the whole vast universe with his thoughts.

ntisthenes (444 B.C.) - No one can ever know God because there is nothing to compare Him with (no eikon)

Euclid (440 B.C.) - Some call God intellect (phronesis), some god, some mind (nous). Only the Good exists. its opposite is nonexistence. This one Good is uniform and always the same.

Plato (347 B.C.) - The boundless, the limit or definition (number, measure), the mixture of these both = our universe, the creator and cause of it all, God. God is simple, eternal, pure mind. The operation of the mind is obvious by looking at the motion of the celestial bodies. God is good and causes all good. Mind, not just necessity created all things.

Aristotle (347 B.C.) - Only philosophy contemplates the immobile, immaterial, self-existent substratum. The most basic of all first principles is that nothing can be and not be at the same time. It cannot have parts, as these are limiting, and the infinite is not limited. Hence God is infinite and unlimited. The great primal body, moving on its own axis, is uncreated, indestructible and not subject to increase of diminution.

Epicurus (306 B.C.) - God is an immortal, imperishable - "aphtharton".

Philo (39 A.D.) - God is simple, absolutely one, and unmixed. He has no parts, no body, which would diminish him, therefore God is not compound. While he is older than the cosmos, he is the creator of the cosmos. He is a monad, One. Impossible to view God, all we can comprehend is His existence, everything else is beyond us.

Appollonius (1st century A.D.) - God is one and apart from all things, He is utterly unlike anything corporeal (bodily in nature). God needs nothing, he is mind and has no organs.

Plutarch (120 A.D.) - God is not like man or anything on earth. has no body, great or small, but is unutterable, indefinable, incomparable, to anything else.

Plotinus (242 A.D.) - God embraces all, all nous, all God, all soul. Being all good, why should he change? Having all things present with him, where would he go? Being perfect, what more can he seek? Mind is all, embracing itself all in itself, it is one and eternal, having no past, present and future. Mind supports being and being is the substance of mind. For to know is to be, each the cause of the other, but though they are two, they are one. To seek is the act of an unsatisfied mind, nous and being are the same, the idea is inseparable from the Nous that has it; the substance of thought is thought. All matter is evil, there is nothing true and good in it, since it is the opposite of perfect being.


In order to make Christianity more palatable to the philosophers in the Roman empire (and from there the populations), they traded in the God of the Bible (God the Father) for the "philosophical monotheism" described above. Read the Christian Creeds and you see exactly what kind of influence these philosophers had.

Around the turn of the third century, Tertullian wrote his approval in adopting the "God of the philosophers",

“Whatever attributes therefore you require as worthy of God, must be found in the Father, who is invisible and unapproachable, and placid, and (so to speak) the God of the philosophers.”

In the mid-third century, Origen wrote, “The Jews indeed, but also some of our people, supposed that God should be understood as a man, that is, adorned with human members and human appearance. But the philosophers despise these stories as fabulous and formed in the likeness of poetic fictions.”

Why was the Biblical God rejected in favor of the philosophical god? Because the "philosphers" despised the concept

Here is a good article for you:

THE LOGIC OF BIBLICAL ANTHROPOMORPHISM
The Harvard Theological Review (Vol. 55, 1962)
By: E. La B. Cherbonnier
http://www.philosophy-religion.org/cherbonnier/logic-bible.htm

-7up

seven7up
05-13-2014, 10:43 PM
7UP: I agree that Jesus is "fully God".


But He was not always according to your religion.

Because "Deity" / Godhood includes the concept of authority. Authority had to be given to the Son.


So, Jesus was not always God in Mormonism.

No. In Mormonism, Jesus was called from among his fellows, (i.e. the sons of God, the sons of the morning, the morning stars). He was chosen and anointed, and thus "became better than the angels, and inherited a more excellent name than they." (Heb 1).

7UP: Nevertheless, the Father is greater than the Son in glory and authority.


A function of their being, not an ontological divide.

I agree. There IS NO "ontological divide".


7UP: So, that puts a damper on the "co-equal" notion.


Only for the strawman you keep beating up.

Again. All you have are strawmen. Sometimes you act like a modalist, and sometimes you act like a Tritheist. Bob and weave Bill, bob and weave.

“The Christian idea of the Trinity may be summed up in the familiar words: ‘The
Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not
three Gods, but one God. The Godhead of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost is all one, the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal. And in this
Trinity none is afore or after other: none is greater or less than another, but
the whole three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal.’”
(Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, ed. James Hastings, Trinity, by W. H. Griffith Thomas, pg 949).

“It [the Trinity] signifies that within the one essence of the Godhead we have to
distinguish three ‘persons’ who are neither three gods on the one side, not three
parts or modes of God on the other, but coequally and coeternally God.”
(Wycliffe Dictionary of Theology, ed. Harrison, Bromiley, and Henry,The Trinity, by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, pg 531).

7UP: As I said, the definition of co-equal is "equal with one another; having the same rank or importance". However, it appears that the Father has a higher rank than the Son.


So? We have 3 co-equal branches of government, but each has a different function. And we only have one government.

I agree that the Godhead has 3 persons who act as the governing officers in "one government". That is not where I take issue with your position. I disagree with your assertion that these three persons are literally the same "Being/substance/essence". In the Biblical text, the Son is called the image/copy/imprint of the Father's person. The Trinity dogma goes well beyond that concept. Now, I will say that the relatively recent adoption of "3 centers of consciousness" in Trinitarian thought is a step in the right direction, but you still hold to unbiblical concepts which were adapted into the creeds.

7UP: You gave an example of your wife being subservient to you, but that is a bad example, because you and your wife are not supposedly the same being.


No analogy is perfect.

Especially when it comes to the self contradictory notion of the "Trinity" as it is (not) understood in most of Christianity.

7UP: The LDS view is that Jesus, for example, had a perfect/flawless intelligence from eternity with the characteristics of Deity.


Not according to BYU, Hunter, or Talmage.

Jesus had the characteristics of Deity from eternity, yet he was not yet "GOD" because before he created the Universe, he had to be "called" "anointed" "chosen". God the Father had to officially recognize the Deity of Jesus. He had to be GIVEN authority by the Father and thus take his place at the Father's right hand into Godhood and act in the Father's name.

However, does your definition of "God" require the concept of power and authority? We see that power and authority is "given" from the Father to the Son.


So? It was "given" to the Apostles too.

Yes. It was given to lawmakers in the Israelite nation and by that God given authority they were then called "gods." Authority was given to Moses by God in order for Moses to become a "god unto Pharaoh".

7UP: We have 3 full glasses of water. How many glasses of water do you have? You have 3 glasses of water. You can even say that each glass of water has the same substance. But I don't even think you could accept that analogy. Can you?


No. Because if I boil one, there would only remain 2 glasses of water and the volume of water would be reduced by 1/3.

So, are you saying that each person in the Godhead is only 1/3 of a God? This is not the first time you made this assertion in our conversation together. You have no choice but to contradict yourself. My example of 3 glasses of water still stands, because each person is FULLY God.

7UP: I agree that they cannot be "taken away" from being God.


Even in the hypothetical situation of God sinning?

If God were to sin, then God was not really God to begin with. That is a little off topic.


7UP: Certainly we cannot become the same Being. That is impossible. Just as what you are proposing is impossible. We can become "like" them though.


As a reflection of who they are. We can not become WHAT they are.

So, your God is incapable of creating beings that can become what He is. Your God is not omnipotent after all?

-7up

Bill the Cat
05-14-2014, 08:19 AM
7UP: I agree that Jesus is "fully God".



Because "Deity" / Godhood includes the concept of authority.

That is a consequence of deity, not the creator of it.


Authority had to be given to the Son.

When was it given? And did that suddenly make Him God?



No. In Mormonism, Jesus was called from among his fellows, (i.e. the sons of God, the sons of the morning, the morning stars). He was chosen and anointed, and thus "became better than the angels, and inherited a more excellent name than they." (Heb 1).

When?




I agree. There IS NO "ontological divide".

But there IS between God and us.


Again. All you have are strawmen. Sometimes you act like a modalist, and sometimes you act like a Tritheist. Bob and weave Bill, bob and weave.

Can't handle the actual doctrines of Trinitarianism, so run and hide while claiming victory. Classic loonie tunes behavior.



“The Christian idea of the Trinity may be summed up in the familiar words: ‘The
Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not
three Gods, but one God. The Godhead of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost is all one, the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal. And in this
Trinity none is afore or after other: none is greater or less than another, but
the whole three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal.’”
(Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, ed. James Hastings, Trinity, by W. H. Griffith Thomas, pg 949).

“It [the Trinity] signifies that within the one essence of the Godhead we have to
distinguish three ‘persons’ who are neither three gods on the one side, not three
parts or modes of God on the other, but coequally and coeternally God.”
(Wycliffe Dictionary of Theology, ed. Harrison, Bromiley, and Henry,The Trinity, by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, pg 531).

Yay!! He can use google!! http://replygif.net/i/432.gif



I agree that the Godhead has 3 persons who act as the governing officers in "one government". That is not where I take issue with your position. I disagree with your assertion that these three persons are literally the same "Being/substance/essence". In the Biblical text, the Son is called the image/copy/imprint of the Father's person. The Trinity dogma goes well beyond that concept. Now, I will say that the relatively recent adoption of "3 centers of consciousness" in Trinitarian thought is a step in the right direction, but you still hold to unbiblical concepts which were adapted into the creeds.

No I don't. You are the one that holds to completely unbiblical polytheism.



Jesus had the characteristics of Deity from eternity, yet he was not yet "GOD" because before he created the Universe, he had to be "called" "anointed" "chosen".

So, one can be deity, but not deity... riiight....


God the Father had to officially recognize the Deity of Jesus.

Now we are talking complete and utter spin doctoring.


He had to be GIVEN authority by the Father and thus take his place at the Father's right hand into Godhood and act in the Father's name.

Jesus was not told to sit at the Father's Right Hand until after His ascension. Do you REALLY want to continue with that load of crap?


However, does your definition of "God" require the concept of power and authority? We see that power and authority is "given" from the Father to the Son.

At what point was it given to the Holy Spirit? Or is He not really God now?



Yes. It was given to lawmakers in the Israelite nation and by that God given authority they were then called "gods." Authority was given to Moses by God in order for Moses to become a "god unto Pharaoh".

Elohim simply meant one with authority over another. That's why Nineveh is called an elohim city because it was where the authority for the Neo-Assyrian Empire was.


So, are you saying that each person in the Godhead is only 1/3 of a God?

:argh: No. That's what I am saying that YOU are claiming with your retarded examples. They are straw. Plain and simple.


This is not the first time you made this assertion in our conversation together. You have no choice but to contradict yourself. My example of 3 glasses of water still stands, because each person is FULLY God.

And if I drink one, there now exists only 2/3 of the total amount of water, meaning LESS water, or LESS God.


If God were to sin, then God was not really God to begin with. That is a little off topic.

No it really isn't.


So, your God is incapable of creating beings that can become what He is. Your God is not omnipotent after all?



Logical contradictions are just that. Your God can't make a square circle either, so he isn't omnipotent. See how stupid that argument is?

Cow Poke
05-14-2014, 08:23 AM
So, your God is incapable of creating beings that can become [I]what He is. Your God is not omnipotent after all?

-7up

This is by far one of the goofiest arguments that Mormons make --- the fact that God doesn't do something silly is NOT proof that He could NOT do it if he wanted to. But why should he WANT to? And he certainly doesn't NEED to. He's God -- He can handle things all by Himself. AND, Jesus doesn't need Joseph Smith to help "check people into Heaven", as one of your colleagues, liked to claim.

Really, 7 -- this is an incredibly silly argument, and you would do well to scratch it from your Mormon talking points.

seven7up
05-16-2014, 12:42 AM
7UP: So, your God is incapable of creating beings that can become what He is. Your God is not omnipotent after all?


This is by far one of the goofiest arguments that Mormons make --- the fact that God doesn't do something silly is NOT proof that He could NOT do it if he wanted to. But why should he WANT to? And he certainly doesn't NEED to. He's God -- He can handle things all by Himself.

This "tongue in cheek" commentary of mine was meant to drive at a couple issues. Here is one of them:

Of all the titles that God may have, his preferred title is as our "Father".

As a father, I want my son to grow up to be a successful person. I don't need him to be successful, but I want him to be. I want him to have a career, get married, have children, etc. I want my children to have all that I have. In a certain sense, I am not successful if my son does not obtain these goals.

So, what are you trying to argue, Cow Poke? That God cannot make us what He is? That God doesn't want us to live the kind of life that God lives?

-7up

seven7up
05-16-2014, 02:29 AM
7UP: The Son was "begotten", in a spiritual sense.


And was the ONLY begotten in the spiritual sense

He was the "Firstbegotten" in the spiritual sense, the "first born of every creature" even before mortality. The title of "firstborn" was his, and then he was ordained/anointed by God to be "brought into the world" as the "Only Begotten" in the flesh.

7up: All the nations of the earth are the "offspring" of God, in a spiritual sense (Acts 17:29).


This is not talking about us being begotten by God the way the Son was.

The term used is the same as is used as a member of a specific species begetting another of the same species after their own kind.

7up: Thus God is "the God of the spirits of all flesh" (Numbers 27:16) in a spiritual sense.


Because He created our spirits. He did not beget us.

"Firstbegotten" implies that there is a second, a third, etc. The way things work on Earth are pattern after the Heavenly/Spiritual realm. I don't see why you all are uncomfortable with the concept of procreation.

7UP: Is there any comparison made to this spiritual sense in which we consider God our Father? Try this:
"We have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of our Spirits and live?" (Hebrews 12:9)


... the writer of Hebrews had just finished saying:

Hebrews 12:6 For those whom the Lord loves He disciplines, And He scourges every son whom He receives.”
Hebrews 12:7 It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons

Notice the terms "whom He receives" and "as sons". These are terms of adoption, meaning that God being the "father of their spirits" referred to them being adopted (received) into His family (as sons).

The implication is this: God is the Father of all of the spirits of all of the nations. There are "sons whom He receives" and there are sons whom God does not receive. Even the sons of "all nations", even the heathen ones, are still technically sons. But God is not disciplining them in the same way.

7UP: You are correct. The "order" isn't necessary. Usually, it actually was the first person in numeric order, but there were some exceptions, which you pointed out. However, you are missing the point: that the prototokos is "chosen" from among other "fellows" ... the other "sons".


No. From among His bretheren, the Jews. Again, you miss Moses' proclamation. There is yet another that proves the Jews are who God was referring to when He mentioned "fellows".

The title of "Firstborn" when applied to Jesus goes well beyond just the Jews.

"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature" (Colossians 1:15).

Again, the context of Hebrews 1. The concept of the "firstborn" son is often spoken of in the scriptures as birthright (Gen. 43:33). Under God's law, the firstborn son was regarded as belonging to God. In the sacrificial system of the temple, symbolic of the cosmos, the male firstborn of animals also belonged to God. Clean animals were used for sacrifices. Jesus Christ was foreordained in order to be the Savior/Redeemer and principle heir of the Kingdom of God, because he was the "Firstborn". That gives him the right to be the first in all things, to be the Creator of the physical universe, to be above all others.

This is Jesus Christ speaking in the Old Testament: I the Lord, the first: Isa. 41:4 . He is referred to as the God of Israel:

"The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, The God who has been my shepherd all my life to this day, the angel who has redeemed me from all evil, (Gen 4:15: 16)

"having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For to which of the angels did He ever say: “You are My Son, Today I have begotten You”? And again: “I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son”? But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: “Let all the angels of God worship Him.”

7UP: By right in the Monarchy, this gives Jesus the position of power and authority. God the Father spiritually begat this unique Son into a position of "pre-eminence" which is his "inheritance" because Jesus is the First born (firstbegotten). All that the Father has was given to the Son as the creation, and then it is to be glorified/resurrected and presented again in the "new creation".


It was not given until the Ascension, not at creation. See Dan 7

It is a foreordination. The inheritance was considered his even prior to mortality, prior to his death, and prior to the resurrection. Our inheritance is foreordained as well. "Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ."


7UP: I never claimed that they were equal. Jesus was superior. That is why he was chosen/anointed from among the sons of God.


I never said you claimed they were equal. I said you EQUATED them, meaning the Son was the same species as the angels, which the scripture does not do.

The text says that Jesus "BECAME" (ginomai) better than the angels. This implies that before He became better, he was one of them. Then it goes on...

7 And of the angels He says: “Who makes His angels spirits And His ministers a flame of fire.”
8 But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.

9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.


Your attempt to say that the entire context is about angels, yet suddenly verse 9 is not talking about angels is a poor attempt at misdirection.

7up: We are all spirits Bill. Our spirit is our true self. Before Jesus entered mortality, he was a spirit. After he died (before the resurrection) his spirit still existed and was a messenger. Angels are spirits. You and I and every other single person are spirits. Your assumption that these "sons of God" are a different species is nothing but myth.


Ecc 3:21 Who knows that the spirit of man ascends upward and the spirit of the beast descends downward to the earth

So, are we now the same species as animals? They have spirits too according to Ecclesiastes...

Animals are never called "sons of God". Yet angels are called sons of God and men are called sons of God and children of God.

7UP: Your appeal to exceptions to the rule does not help you very much in your argument here. Especially when you realize that God is choosing from among sons either way.


No, YOU assume that the bene elohim are sons the same way The Son is. God had ONE option, and that was The Son, His Wisdom, His Word.

If there is only "one option", then you cannot even call it an "option". Again the text contradicts you. Verse 9 even gives a reason why Jesus was chosen/anointed from among his companions/fellows. See above, it is because he "loved righteousness", THEREFORE, he was anointed. It does not say, that he was the only one and there were no other options.


7UP: Why do you assume that they were not "offspring" in the same manner?


Because they were MADE, while The Son was begotten.

If they are called "sons of God" and Jesus is the "firstbegotten" son of God, then I don't see why you can justify your baseless assumption that they cannot be spiritual sons in the same sense.

7UP: They are all spirits. We are all spirits The difference is that Jesus was a perfect spirit and the others were not. We are not.


Animals have spirits too.

Like I said, animals are not called "sons of God". They are not called the "offspring" of God.

7UP: Not "just another angel". Jesus, from his eternal intelligence, is Deity by nature.


No He wasn't according to Mormon leaders. He had to EARN it.

Just like the Hebrews passage says above, God recognized the superior nature of Jesus, THEREFORE, he was chosen and "foreordained from before the foundation of the world". (1 Peter 1:19-21)

The Lord told Jeremiah, “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations” (Jeremiah 1:5). John the Baptist was foreordained to prepare the people for the Savior's mortal ministry (see Isaiah 40:3; Luke 1:13-17. It is the same word applied to those who were foreordained as disciples of Jesus. Same concept.

7UP: Jesus was superior in every way. The other sons of God were all imperfect/flawed/ignorant/etc. Hebrews 1 explains how Jesus was superior, unique, chosen, etc. There is no distinction of "species" as you claim.


Nor is there any conflating the two as one species.

There is no mention of species. When Jesus "became" better than the angels, that does not mean he is a different species.

7UP: Again, for Jesus to "inherit" the title, then that means the Father had the same title.


He did. God is King of the Jews

God is more than just "King of the Jews". God is the King of all the earth: Ps. 47:7 . ( Zech. 14:9, 16 . ) God was King before Jews even existed.

7UP: You are making an incoherent claim. Your assertion that Jesus had to die in order to become king is nonsense. “Jehovah is King forever and ever.”—Ps. 10:16.


Micah 5:2 "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel."

Jesus was King before birth, and in terms of being "king of the Jews", that was his birthright upon entering mortality, not after his death. "born King of the Jews": Matt. 2:2 .

"Having become so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they." (Heb 1:4)

7UP: Your denial on this is mind-boggling. Who are "they" in this verse?


The angels that the Jews were worshipping as their king.

Did they call angels their "king"? i don't see the title "king" being applied to angels.


It is speaking of why Jesus qualified to be their King, and thus qualified to be worshipped by them INSTEAD of the mere angels who were nothing more than God's servants.

Yes. I agree that it is defining Christ as Deity, the image of the Father's person, who is worthy of worship. While Christ is also a servant of God, He is the only divine one.


The context is clear. You don't worship ANY angels. You worship ONLY your King, who is not an angel, He is a Jew.

Jesus BECAME better than the sons of God (angels), thus was to be worshipped.

7UP: God the Father was establishing a unique relationship with Jesus, a position which was not given to the other spirits/angels. ... The "sons of the morning" and the "morning stars" are very clearly representative of ANGELS in the Biblical text.


No. They are descriptions of the glory that angels and Christ possess.

So, when the text says "son of the morning" or "morning star" , your claim is that it does not refer to angels?

7UP: They are the "sons of God." Jesus is known by this title as well, but only more exalted and "brighter", so to speak. Rev 2:28 has Jesus referring to Himself, the morning star—that is, Jesus will give to us Himself, He being "the morning star" (see Rev 22:16).


Believers already have Him. How can He give us Himself if we already possess Him? No. The "morning star" is the glory of God which outshines all other glories.

Nice try. Jesus IS the bright morning star. It does not say that the morning star is a glory that he possesses and will give.

"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this message for the churches. I am both the source of David and the heir to his throne. I am the bright morning star."

This is an angelic title. It fits all the text that I discussed above. You can't twist your way out of it. Among the "sons of God" , Jesus is preeminent. As the "firstborn" He is the principle heir to the throne, "foreordained" to be the Creator and Savior. He is the perfect one to be sacrificed for the sin offering / atonement. He hated iniquity and loved righteousness, THEREFORE, He was anointed from among his fellows/companions.

-7up

Cow Poke
05-16-2014, 08:09 AM
7UP: So, your God is incapable of creating beings that can become what He is. Your God is not omnipotent after all?

This "tongue in cheek" commentary of mine was meant to drive at a couple issues. Here is one of them:

So, you saw how nutty it was, and decided to call it "tongue in cheek"? :glare:


Of all the titles that God may have, his preferred title is as our "Father".

As a father, I want my son to grow up to be a successful person. I don't need him to be successful, but I want him to be. I want him to have a career, get married, have children, etc. I want my children to have all that I have. In a certain sense, I am not successful if my son does not obtain these goals.

So, YOUR will trumps GOD'S will? What if God had other plans for him? What if God, for example, called him to be a missionary to a leper colony, where he served the Lord, but died poor and homeless? Then YOU are "not successful"? That's just downright asinine.

I'm AMAZED at how your brain is wired to say really screwy things to protect your false religion.


So, what are you trying to argue, Cow Poke? That God cannot make us what He is?

God is sovereign. He can do ANYTHING He wants, at any time. The fact that Smith came up with this goofy "man can be God" nonsense is not "on God" -- it's on Smith, and those who got duped into believing it.


That God doesn't want us to live the kind of life that God lives?

-7up

Seven, I say this with all sincerity.... I am SO GLAD you will never be a "God", nowhere, no how, no way. Your thinking is WAY too scrambled to run a planet or world or cosmos or whatever it is you think you'll eventually run.

Bill the Cat
05-16-2014, 10:29 AM
http://www1.pgcps.org/uploadedImages/Schools_and_Centers/Elementary_Schools/Ardmore/scissors_animated.gif



-7up

EVERY single reply was you restating the same refuted crap. I've answered EVERY ONE of these, yet you continue to restate them. Jesus was not a created angel. His "fellows" were the Jews. Hence the freakin name of the BOOK! HEBREWS

Bill the Cat
05-16-2014, 10:45 AM
Here is a good article for you:

THE LOGIC OF BIBLICAL ANTHROPOMORPHISM
The Harvard Theological Review (Vol. 55, 1962)
By: E. La B. Cherbonnier
http://www.philosophy-religion.org/cherbonnier/logic-bible.htm

-7up

:ahem: As JP said to Kevin Graham about Kevin's use of Cherbonnier:

As noted in my book, Cherbonnier never stumped for the "physical body" aspect of this. I have no problem with the sort of anthropomorphism he did stump for (God has feelings, reacts, etc.

Cerebrum123
05-16-2014, 11:34 AM
So, your God is incapable of creating beings that can become what He is. Your God is not omnipotent after all?

-7up

Not anymore than He can make a square circle, or a married bachelor. Aren't you in agreement that God can't do logically impossible things?

Christianbookworm
05-16-2014, 12:13 PM
Not anymore than He can make a square circle, or a married bachelor. Aren't you in agreement that God can't do logically impossible things?

I don't think the Mormon god is as powerful as the Christian God. We're talking about a Being that exists outside of space and time and can make what he wants to exist be real. We can't do that. We can make up worlds and characters but can't give them free will or an existence outside of our imaginations and various forms of media and books.

Sparko
05-16-2014, 12:15 PM
So what's to prevent an evil intelligence from becoming a God and creating their own world to rule?

Cerebrum123
05-16-2014, 12:49 PM
I don't think the Mormon god is as powerful as the Christian God. We're talking about a Being that exists outside of space and time and can make what he wants to exist be real. We can't do that. We can make up worlds and characters but can't give them free will or an existence outside of our imaginations and various forms of media and books.

Yeah, the thing is 7up is trying to say that if God can't make people powerful like Him, then He's not omnipotent. Which is the same kind of arguments you get with square circles and such. It's a misunderstanding of what God's omnipotence entails, and I know that 7up realizes this as far as logical impossibilities, he just needs to realize that more than one God is such a logical impossibility(the Trinity not being three Gods is not subject to this by it's nature).

Christianbookworm
05-16-2014, 01:02 PM
So what's to prevent an evil intelligence from becoming a God and creating their own world to rule?

Apokolips? I'm sorry. Just that that''s what I think of when I hear evil god with their own planet. Maybe I watched too many DCAU cartoons...

Cow Poke
05-16-2014, 01:05 PM
Yeah, the thing is 7up is trying to say that if God can't make people powerful like Him, then He's not omnipotent. Which is the same kind of arguments you get with square circles and such. It's a misunderstanding of what God's omnipotence entails, and I know that 7up realizes this as far as logical impossibilities, he just needs to realize that more than one God is such a logical impossibility(the Trinity not being three Gods is not subject to this by it's nature).

I think it's more than that - I think it's asking God to do something SILLY and unnecessary, not just logically impossible -- God is ALL POWERFUL, why would He NEED to create a bunch of mini-me Gods?

It's just DUMB, and came from Smith's twisted imagination.

Cerebrum123
05-16-2014, 01:46 PM
I think it's more than that - I think it's asking God to do something SILLY and unnecessary, not just logically impossible -- God is ALL POWERFUL, why would He NEED to create a bunch of mini-me Gods?

It's just DUMB, and came from Smith's twisted imagination.

Well, some could take Gideon's "fleece test" as "silly and unnecessary". So I don't see that as a real objection to what God would, or wouldn't do.

Cow Poke
05-16-2014, 01:48 PM
Well, some could take Gideon's "fleece test" as "silly and unnecessary". So I don't see that as a real objection to what God would, or wouldn't do.

The fleece test had a purpose. Creating additional "all powerful beings" does not. :shrug: It's both dumb and redundant.

seven7up
05-22-2014, 10:37 PM
7UP: I agree that Jesus is "fully God". Because "Deity" / Godhood includes the concept of authority.


That is a consequence of deity, not the creator of it.

7UP: Authority had to be given to the Son.


When was it given? And did that suddenly make Him God?

Before the creation of the physical universe. Jesus was spiritually perfect, but without the highest authority. Jesus did not have the title of God until the Father bestowed it and the authority upon him.

7UP: Yes. It was given to lawmakers in the Israelite nation and by that God given authority they were then called "gods." Authority was given to Moses by God in order for Moses to become a "god unto Pharaoh".


Elohim simply meant one with authority over another. That's why Nineveh is called an elohim city because it was where the authority for the Neo-Assyrian Empire was.

So, you agree that bestowing authority upon another is an important aspect of what merits the title of elohim/god.

7UP: In Mormonism, Jesus was called from among his fellows, (i.e. the sons of God, the sons of the morning, the morning stars). He was chosen and anointed, and thus "became better than the angels, and inherited a more excellent name than they." (Heb 1).


When?

Jesus was chosen/foreordained before the creation of the physical universe: To be the Creator, to be the Savior, to be the first in the resurrection; to be the primary heir of the Father's kingdom, etc.

7UP: There IS NO "ontological divide".


But there IS between God and us.

There is a divide between God and us, but it has to do with power, authority, spiritual perfection, morality, wisdom, immortality, knowledge, etc. It is not an ontological divide in the sense that you imply. The sense that you imply would make the very person of Jesus Christ, who is both fully Deity and fully man, a logical contradiction. Your assertion undermines the very foundation of Christianity.

7UP: So, your God is incapable of creating beings that can become what He is. Your God is not omnipotent after all?


Logical contradictions are just that. Your God can't make a square circle either, so he isn't omnipotent.

We agree that there are logical contradictions. We disagree about what concepts are logically contradictory.

7UP: All you have are strawmen. Sometimes you act like a modalist, and sometimes you act like a Tritheist. Bob and weave Bill, bob and weave.


Can't handle the actual doctrines of Trinitarianism, so run and hide while claiming victory. Classic loonie tunes behavior.

No need to run and hide. I can point out the errors of the doctrines of Trinitarianism in the open.

“The Christian idea of the Trinity may be summed up in the familiar words: ‘The
Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not
three Gods, but one God. The Godhead of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost is all one, the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal. And in this
Trinity none is afore or after other: none is greater or less than another, but
the whole three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal.’”
(Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, ed. James Hastings, Trinity, by W. H. Griffith Thomas, pg 949).

“It [the Trinity] signifies that within the one essence of the Godhead we have to
distinguish three ‘persons’ who are neither three gods on the one side, not three
parts or modes of God on the other, but coequally and coeternally God.”
(Wycliffe Dictionary of Theology, ed. Harrison, Bromiley, and Henry,The Trinity, by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, pg 531).


Yay!! He can use google!!

Quite useful.

7UP; I agree that the Godhead has 3 persons who act as the governing officers in "one government". That is not where I take issue with your position. I disagree with your assertion that these three persons are literally the same "Being/substance/essence". In the Biblical text, the Son is called the image/copy/imprint of the Father's person. The Trinity dogma goes well beyond that concept. Now, I will say that the relatively recent adoption of "3 centers of consciousness" in Trinitarian thought is a step in the right direction, but you still hold to unbiblical concepts which were adapted into the creeds.


No I don't. You are the one that holds to completely unbiblical polytheism.

I simply accept the Biblical sense of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit being "One". It is not one literal and metaphysical spirit essence that is actually omnipresent. The scriptures do not support that.

7up: Jesus had the characteristics of Deity from eternity, yet he was not yet "GOD" because before he created the Universe, he had to be "called" "anointed" "chosen".


So, one can be deity, but not deity... riiight....

Someone may have all of the knowledge and skill of a doctor, but you cannot legally practice without the authority to do so.

7UP: God the Father had to officially recognize the Deity of Jesus.


Now we are talking complete and utter spin doctoring.

7UP: He had to be GIVEN authority by the Father and thus take his place at the Father's right hand into Godhood and act in the Father's name.


Jesus was not told to sit at the Father's Right Hand until after His ascension. Do you REALLY want to continue with that load of crap?

Jesus was returning to the His place at the Father's right hand. He was going back to the glorious position that Had with the Father prior to the incarnation.

7up; However, does your definition of "God" require the concept of power and authority? We see that power and authority is "given" from the Father to the Son.


At what point was it given to the Holy Spirit? Or is He not really God now?

Not much information given about the Holy Spirit.

7UP: So, are you saying that each person in the Godhead is only 1/3 of a God?


No. That's what I am saying that YOU are claiming with your retarded examples. They are straw. Plain and simple.

7UP: This is not the first time you made this assertion in our conversation together. You have no choice but to contradict yourself. My example of 3 glasses of water still stands, because each person is FULLY God.


If each were NOT fully God, then you could cut one off and then only be left with 2/3 of the original size of God.

You are affected by the mindset that God has a "size".


And if I drink one, there now exists only 2/3 of the total amount of water, meaning LESS water, or LESS God.

That only affects the water/glass that you drank. The other two remain full glasses of water, each being fully Deity/God. We would be missing the relationship that once existed with the person that was no longer there, but that does not make the other two any less Deity, because each is fully Deity.


-7up

seven7up
05-22-2014, 10:54 PM
7UP: So, your God is incapable of creating beings that can become what He is. Your God is not omnipotent after all?


So, you saw how nutty it was, and decided to call it "tongue in cheek"?

It isn't nutty. Bill claims that there is an ontological divide between God and man, which is what makes it impossible for man to be like God. However, God is omnipotent enough to become man, and this breaks down the dogma of the ontological divide. So, then the Trinitarian may just say that God is omnipotent enough to make it happen one way, but not the other. Hardly a consistent viewpoint.

7UP: Of all the titles that God may have, his preferred title is as our "Father".
As a father, I want my son to grow up to be a successful person. I don't need him to be successful, but I want him to be. I want him to have a career, get married, have children, etc. I want my children to have all that I have. In a certain sense, I am not successful if my son does not obtain these goals.



So, YOUR will trumps GOD'S will? What if God had other plans for him? What if God, for example, called him to be a missionary to a leper colony, where he served the Lord, but died poor and homeless? Then YOU are "not successful"? That's just downright asinine.

A missionary to a leper colony IS a success. You entirely missed the point . I am talking about God wanting us to be successful; to be like Him. Just like a mortal father wants their children to grow up, and gain the good characteristics that the father has.

7up; So, what are you trying to argue, Cow Poke? That God cannot make us what He is?


God is sovereign. He can do ANYTHING He wants, at any time.

So, are you saying that, unlike Bill, you believe that God COULD create divine beings, but refuses to and purposefully creates inferior beings; and then plans to punish the grand majority of them for because they are created inferior.

Can you think of any philosophical dilemmas that may arise from this viewpoint?

7UP: That God doesn't want us to live the kind of life that God lives?


Your thinking is WAY too scrambled to run a planet or world or cosmos or whatever it is you think you'll eventually run.

Maybe God just purposefully created you to be too inferior to understand the points being made.

-7up

seven7up
05-22-2014, 11:47 PM
7UP: Here is a good article for you:

THE LOGIC OF BIBLICAL ANTHROPOMORPHISM
The Harvard Theological Review (Vol. 55, 1962)
By: E. La B. Cherbonnier
http://www.philosophy-religion.org/c...ogic-bible.htm



As JP said to Kevin Graham about Kevin's use of Cherbonnier:
Quote Originally Posted by JP Holding
As noted in my book, Cherbonnier never stumped for the "physical body" aspect of this. I have no problem with the sort of anthropomorphism he did stump for (God has feelings, reacts, etc.


JP Holding is holding back on the implication of Cherbonnier's arguments, and so are you. The link is there for anyone to read and I invite them to do so. While this scholar still may hold to a kind of Ex Nihilo creation theology, he certainly argues many steps away from the view of God described by the creeds, and far closer to the view of God described by the Mormons.

Cherbonnier debunks the idea of God being literally "infinite"/"unlimited"/"unknowable"/"indescribable"/"omnipresent" spirit essence as described by Trinitarian views, which were adapted from the "god of the philosophers" in Greek/Roman culture. In other words, the Trinitarians in "classic theism" were far too heavily influenced by philosophical monism. He calls this the "mystic" view of God, which is not Biblical at all:

Here is a good example from the text:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
5) In what sense is God invisible?

On one point, at least, mystic and prophet do seem to agree. Both speak of God as invisible. Once more, however, their agreement is apparent only. It dissolves in the light of the distinction between de jure and de facto. For the mystic, God so completely transcends the spatio-temporal world that the "finite" categories of seeing, hearing, and touching simply do not apply (except, perhaps, in some highly metaphorical sense). Such a God is invisible in principle.

The biblical God, on the contrary, is invisible simply as a matter of tactics. De facto, men seldom do see Him. Upon occasion, however, he does show himself: to Moses (Ex. 33:23), to the elders of Israel (Ex. 24: 10), to Isaiah (Is. 6: 1). St. John quite consistently refers to "that which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life . . ." (I Jn. 1 : 1 ).

That is, God retains the freedom to show himself or to withhold his face at will. As Rudolf Bultmann observes,

God is not invisible to the senses as a matter of principle. Indeed, Hebrew has no word for ‘invisible.’ God is invisible because he wills to be so."15

Perhaps one reason why God chooses to remain invisible for the time being is that He cannot yet trust men not to stare at him. The tendency to dissociate, to become a voyeur, is overcome only when men are as trustworthy as God. For most men, the vision of God will be postponed until we are perfected in love. In the meantime, we may well think twice before assuming that just because He has not shown himself to us, He is invisible "by nature."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Also note how he criticizes the idea of God which is supposedly "timeless" or "immutable" in some kind of metaphysical sense, or that somehow God "must be altogether beyond the realm of change and becoming." He continues:
- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The doctrine of creation does not, as is sometimes held, fix a great gulf between two realms of being, the divine and the human. On the contrary, the existence which God bestows upon Adam does not differ in kind from his own. It is therefore misleading to speak of "discontinuity" between the Creator and his creation. Opposition between men and God there surely is, but it is volitional, not metaphysical.... It preserves neither the mystery of God nor the humility of man to insist a priori that God must be "wholly other"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



-7up

seven7up
05-23-2014, 12:05 AM
7up: So, your God is incapable of creating beings that can become what He is. Your God is not omnipotent after all?


Not anymore than He can make a square circle, or a married bachelor. Aren't you in agreement that God can't do logically impossible things?


Yes. I agree that God cannot do logically impossible things.

I was pointing out the inconsistency of the arguments given by both Bill and Cow Poke.

Furthermore, let's say that, for example, creation Ex Nihilo is "logically impossible". Then you cannot criticize Mormons for believing in a God who is supposedly not "omnipotent".

Case in point. Here we have Christian bookworm, describing the "mystic" view of God:


I don't think the Mormon god is as powerful as the Christian God. We're talking about a Being that exists outside of space and time and can make what he wants to exist be real.

For starters, the god you describe is no god at all, if that kind of god doesn't exist. Just because you think that your imagined version of god seems "more powerful" than the Mormon view, does not make your view of god accurate. It is actually the "mystical god" described by Cherbonnier as being unBiblical. Not only that, but your view of god does not accurately explain the world we live in. Again, let's go back to the article:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
7) In what sense is God transcendent and/or immanent?

"Transcendent," as generally used, means "beyond space and time." From what has been said about the mystical God, it is obvious that He is transcendent in this sense.

..., a spatio-temporal God would be "a Being besides other beings," and therefore incompatible with the mystical definition of unity. ...

The God of the Bible is neither transcendent nor immanent in the mystical sense. Being anthropomorphic, He is quite compatible with spatio-temporal existence. If he can be called "transcendent" at all, it is only in the sense that he is sovereign over his entire creation....

Neither is the biblical God immanent, in the sense that He is diffused throughout the universe. To insist that He is omnipresent would be to imprison Him. The biblical God can be wherever He wants to be. If He is "immanent," it is only in the sense that He takes an active role in his creation, and particularly in human history, guiding the destiny of nations in ways they little suspect.

In the biblical context, the meaning of "immanent" is thus not very different from "transcendent." God is immanent insofar as He acts in history. He is transcendent insofar as He acts triumphantly.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -

-7up

seven7up
05-23-2014, 12:19 AM
... I know that 7up realizes this as far as logical impossibilities, he just needs to realize that more than one God is such a logical impossibility.


I know that more than one mystical god ( transcendent/omnipresent/unknowable/ etc spirit essence ) is a logical impossibility.

I am arguing that this version of god you espouse is not the correct one.

I argue that there is one God, but in the LDS sense, which is not a contradiction, because there is an order to it:

As Joseph Smith said concerning Christ who inherits this kingdom, and Jesus will essentially say, "when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to My Father, so that He may obtain kingdom upon kingdom".

The Father has more power/authority/glory than the Son. There is no conflict of power between these persons.





Sparko wrote:


So what's to prevent an evil intelligence from becoming a God and creating their own world to rule?


Where would this intelligence get the knowledge, power, authority, etc?




-7up

Cow Poke
05-23-2014, 04:08 AM
7UP: So, your God is incapable of creating beings that can become what He is. Your God is not omnipotent after all?

So, you're just going to keep repeating the same buttdumb argument over and over? :glare: I thought you were smarter than that. Just because somebody does NOT do something does not mean they CAN not do it. In fact, it would be outright DUMB. BECAUSE God is omnipotent He does not NEED to create a bunch of Mormon mini-me gods.

Pleases send us smarter Mormons. :brood:

Bill the Cat
05-23-2014, 07:40 AM
7UP: Here is a good article for you:

THE LOGIC OF BIBLICAL ANTHROPOMORPHISM
The Harvard Theological Review (Vol. 55, 1962)
By: E. La B. Cherbonnier
http://www.philosophy-religion.org/c...ogic-bible.htm


JP Holding is holding back on the implication of Cherbonnier's arguments, and so are you.

Having now read Cherbonnier's whole article, and not just the snippets you Mormon apologists throw out there, it has become quite obvious that you are completely misusing him, just as JP charged Kevin with. The "implications" of his argument are nothing more than for a personal God, instead of a divine "force" that is completely indistinguishable and passionless (or as he says "in the mystical world-view, where God is the "Infinite All.") Cherbonnier means something entirely different by the term "anthropomorphic" than you do. That much is painfully obvious to anyone who even glances at this article. He also provides his definition in a classroom companion note sheet for teaching his article:

http://www.philosophy-religion.org/cherbonnier/pdfs/elc-charts_logic-Bib-Anthr.pdf

which states:

1. Definition of "anthropomorphism": "any theology that conceives of God in terms of those characteristics which are distinctively human: the capacity for discriminating judgment, the exercise of responsible decision and choice, the ability to carry out long-range purposes."



The link is there for anyone to read and I invite them to do so.

I have done so, and it has proven the point JP made, that God is not "everything", and that mysticism "is never able to state unequivocally the difference between man and God...", but that "[the] superiority of the Creator to his creatures consists of his "eternity." He can live forever, while they need not. They exist only at his pleasure. Whether they do in fact survive, or whether they perish, is entirely up to Him"


While this scholar still may hold to a kind of Ex Nihilo creation theology, he certainly argues many steps away from the view of God described by the creeds, and far closer to the view of God described by the Mormons.

Only if you, as you have parroted, completely misuse what he was arguing both for and against. Cherbonnier makes a passing comment that Mormon belief in God being an exalted human is closer to correct than what the mystics of his time believed about an impersonal "God" who is merely absent from interacting with His creation. He concludes " The conclusion is that neither Jews, nor Mormons, nor other Christians need be embarrassed by the idea that God is a Person." He quotes Professor W. H. V. Reade of Oxford who stated "When fear of anthropomorphism induces man to reject the idea of a personal God, and to substitute for it some product of abstract thinking, they simply delude themselves. ". But NOWHERE does he agree with you that God is an exalted human being with a human body.

http://www.philosophy-religion.org/cherbonnier/defense.htm



Cherbonnier debunks the idea of God being literally "infinite"/"unlimited"/"unknowable"/"indescribable"/"omnipresent" spirit essence

As redefined by the Jewish Mystics, Buddhists, Hindus, and other non-Christian groups who believe in a god who is "diffused throughout the universe"


as described by Trinitarian views,

Trinitarians were not who he was arguing against, nor their ideas. Had YOU actually done some homework, you'd realize that your use of Cherbonnier to argue against trinitarian definitions of those terms is simply wrong. Read the chart at the bottom of the companion suppliment and maybe you will see that.


which were adapted from the "god of the philosophers" in Greek/Roman culture.

Cherbonnier was a philosopher. :duh:


In other words, the Trinitarians in "classic theism" were far too heavily influenced by philosophical monism. He calls this the "mystic" view of God, which is not Biblical at all:

Rubbish. Absolute rubbish. Were you to understand Cherbonnier's argument AT ALL, you would know what he meant by "monism" (hint: That the "god" of the mystics is the sole existent oneness, which forbids not only a second "god," but the existence of anything else at all.) So, YOUR use of "monism" is not how Cherbonnier uses it.


Here is a good example from the text:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
5) In what sense is God invisible?

On one point, at least, mystic and prophet do seem to agree. Both speak of God as invisible. Once more, however, their agreement is apparent only. It dissolves in the light of the distinction between de jure and de facto. For the mystic, God so completely transcends the spatio-temporal world that the "finite" categories of seeing, hearing, and touching simply do not apply (except, perhaps, in some highly metaphorical sense). Such a God is invisible in principle.

The biblical God, on the contrary, is invisible simply as a matter of tactics. De facto, men seldom do see Him. Upon occasion, however, he does show himself: to Moses (Ex. 33:23), to the elders of Israel (Ex. 24: 10), to Isaiah (Is. 6: 1). St. John quite consistently refers to "that which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life . . ." (I Jn. 1 : 1 ).

That is, God retains the freedom to show himself or to withhold his face at will. As Rudolf Bultmann observes,

God is not invisible to the senses as a matter of principle. Indeed, Hebrew has no word for ‘invisible.’ God is invisible because he wills to be so."15

Perhaps one reason why God chooses to remain invisible for the time being is that He cannot yet trust men not to stare at him. The tendency to dissociate, to become a voyeur, is overcome only when men are as trustworthy as God. For most men, the vision of God will be postponed until we are perfected in love. In the meantime, we may well think twice before assuming that just because He has not shown himself to us, He is invisible "by nature."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Also note how he criticizes the idea of God which is supposedly "timeless" or "immutable" in some kind of metaphysical sense, or that somehow God "must be altogether beyond the realm of change and becoming." He continues:
- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The doctrine of creation does not, as is sometimes held, fix a great gulf between two realms of being, the divine and the human. On the contrary, the existence which God bestows upon Adam does not differ in kind from his own. It is therefore misleading to speak of "discontinuity" between the Creator and his creation. Opposition between men and God there surely is, but it is volitional, not metaphysical.... It preserves neither the mystery of God nor the humility of man to insist a priori that God must be "wholly other"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



-7up

You've completely missed the intent of Cherbonnier, as I've shown from not only this work, but the companion teaching aide. You have improperly read Mormon ideas into his work and ascribed something to it that has no basis in reality. Sorry, but you failed. Again.

seven7up
06-01-2014, 12:54 PM
Just because somebody does NOT do something does not mean they CAN not do it. In fact, it would be outright DUMB. BECAUSE God is omnipotent He does not NEED to create a bunch of Mormon mini-me gods.

And thus we arrive at the idea of the who and what the evangelical god is.

Instead of a loving Father who wants the very best for His children,

You have an ego-maniacal monster, a being who purposefully creates inferior beings so that he can dominate and rule over them for his own selfish purposes - including creating billions from nothing, so that the grand majority can suffer in misery and damnation forever. Adherents to such religion do so because they fear that if they deviate from this viewpoint, then they themselves will go along with to majority, to eternal hell fire. Your dogma is abhorrent.


-7up

seven7up
06-01-2014, 01:12 PM
Having now read Cherbonnier's whole article, and not just the snippets you Mormon apologists throw out there, it has become quite obvious that you are completely misusing him, just as JP charged Kevin with. The "implications" of his argument are nothing more than for a personal God, instead of a divine "force" that is completely indistinguishable and passionless (or as he says "in the mystical world-view, where God is the "Infinite All.") Cherbonnier means something entirely different by the term "anthropomorphic" than you do.


I am not arguing that Cherbonnier is holds to purely Mormon doctrines. If he did, then we would expect him to actually be a Mormon, which he is not. Nevertheless, you are ignoring what is being said completely. I gave an example, like Trinitarians believing God is "invisible" as a matter of principle, or in a metaphysical sense. Cherbonnier argues against that, and actually gives a similar perspective to what Mormons give concerning this particular topic.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
5) In what sense is God invisible?

On one point, at least, mystic and prophet do seem to agree. Both speak of God as invisible. Once more, however, their agreement is apparent only. It dissolves in the light of the distinction between de jure and de facto. For the mystic, God so completely transcends the spatio-temporal world that the "finite" categories of seeing, hearing, and touching simply do not apply (except, perhaps, in some highly metaphorical sense). Such a God is invisible in principle.

The biblical God, on the contrary, is invisible simply as a matter of tactics. De facto, men seldom do see Him. Upon occasion, however, he does show himself: to Moses (Ex. 33:23), to the elders of Israel (Ex. 24: 10), to Isaiah (Is. 6: 1). St. John quite consistently refers to "that which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life . . ." (I Jn. 1 : 1 ).

That is, God retains the freedom to show himself or to withhold his face at will. As Rudolf Bultmann observes,

God is not invisible to the senses as a matter of principle. Indeed, Hebrew has no word for ‘invisible.’ God is invisible because he wills to be so."15

Perhaps one reason why God chooses to remain invisible for the time being is that He cannot yet trust men not to stare at him. The tendency to dissociate, to become a voyeur, is overcome only when men are as trustworthy as God. For most men, the vision of God will be postponed until we are perfected in love. In the meantime, we may well think twice before assuming that just because He has not shown himself to us, He is invisible "by nature."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

So, stop trying to side track the discussion by simply claiming that Cherbonnier is not a Mormon. We all know that.

Just address what he is saying.

-7up

seven7up
06-01-2014, 02:12 PM
7UP: Cherbonnier debunks the idea of God being literally "infinite"/"unlimited"/"unknowable"/"indescribable"/"omnipresent" spirit essence as described by Trinitarian views, which were adapted from the "god of the philosophers" in Greek/Roman culture. In other words, the Trinitarians in "classic theism" were far too heavily influenced by philosophical monism.


Trinitarians were not who he was arguing against, nor their ideas. Had YOU actually done some homework, you'd realize that your use of Cherbonnier to argue against trinitarian definitions of those terms is simply wrong.


As you can see, I was saying that classic theistic views of God were ADAPTED FROM and INFLUENCED BY Monism. Please address the points that I am actually making, rather than the arguments that you wish I were making.

Are you going to feign ignorance when it comes the kickback that Cherbonnier is giving to these theological perspectives? Are you going to pretend that there was no influence of the god of the philosophers upon Christianity?

Both in Catholicism and Reformed theology, there remained an incorporation of Greek philosophy. They did not outright reject Platonism, which has been a significant influence in Christian theology. This is quite obvious.


Only if you, as you have parroted, completely misuse what he was arguing both for and against. Cherbonnier makes a passing comment that Mormon belief in God being an exalted human is closer to correct than what the mystics of his time believed about an impersonal "God" who is merely absent from interacting with His creation. He concludes " The conclusion is that neither Jews, nor Mormons, nor other Christians need be embarrassed by the idea that God is a Person." He quotes Professor W. H. V. Reade of Oxford who stated "When fear of anthropomorphism induces man to reject the idea of a personal God, and to substitute for it some product of abstract thinking, they simply delude themselves. ". But NOWHERE does he agree with you that God is an exalted human being with a human body.

I never said that Cherbonnier agrees with every aspect of Mormon theology. Your attempt to dodge the points being made by Cherbonnier is embarrassing. I brought up 3 ideas:

1) How is God "invisible"
2) God in relation to "spatio-temporal" existence (transcendence and immanence)
3) God supposedly being "wholly other" compared to man

This was in relation to the second idea:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
7) In what sense is God transcendent and/or immanent?

"Transcendent," as generally used, means "beyond space and time." From what has been said about the mystical God, it is obvious that He is transcendent in this sense.

..., a spatio-temporal God would be "a Being besides other beings," and therefore incompatible with the mystical definition of unity. ...

The God of the Bible is neither transcendent nor immanent in the mystical sense. Being anthropomorphic, He is quite compatible with spatio-temporal existence. If he can be called "transcendent" at all, it is only in the sense that he is sovereign over his entire creation....

Neither is the biblical God immanent, in the sense that He is diffused throughout the universe. To insist that He is omnipresent would be to imprison Him. The biblical God can be wherever He wants to be. If He is "immanent," it is only in the sense that He takes an active role in his creation, and particularly in human history, guiding the destiny of nations in ways they little suspect.

In the biblical context, the meaning of "immanent" is thus not very different from "transcendent." God is immanent insofar as He acts in history. He is transcendent insofar as He acts triumphantly.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -

Do you agree with this explanation of transcendent and immanent?

If not, how does it contrast to your view? How does it compare to the LDS view?


You've completely missed the intent of Cherbonnier...

I have not. What YOU have done is tried the change the subject by saying, "Well, Cherbonnier did not claim that God was an exalted man." I never claimed that Cherbonnier argued for that. I also never claimed that Charbonnier was arguing against Ex Nihilo. In fact, I pointed out that I imagined that we would be in disagreement on that issue. What I DID do was point out some viewpoints of his which appear to be at odds with your theology. In the next portion, I was simply contrasting your of an absolute "ontological divide" between God and man, with Cherbonnier's softer stance:

- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The doctrine of creation does not, as is sometimes held, fix a great gulf between two realms of being, the divine and the human. On the contrary, the existence which God bestows upon Adam does not differ in kind from his own. It is therefore misleading to speak of "discontinuity" between the Creator and his creation. Opposition between men and God there surely is, but it is volitional, not metaphysical.... It preserves neither the mystery of God nor the humility of man to insist a priori that God must be "wholly other"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

You can attempt to agree with Cherbonnier on one or more of these points, and then try to twist his words in order to pretend that they are in line with the Creeds of Christianity. OR you can say that you disagree with Cherbonnier. OR you can disagree with the traditional understanding of traditional/creedal Christianity. However, your tactic so far has been to deflect and evade.


-7up

Bill the Cat
06-02-2014, 06:44 AM
7UP: Cherbonnier debunks the idea of God being literally "infinite"/"unlimited"/"unknowable"/"indescribable"/"omnipresent" spirit essence as described by Trinitarian views, which were adapted from the "god of the philosophers" in Greek/Roman culture. In other words, the Trinitarians in "classic theism" were far too heavily influenced by philosophical monism.




As you can see, I was saying that classic theistic views of God were ADAPTED FROM and INFLUENCED BY Monism.

Oh come off it! You tried to use Cherbonnier's arguments against the mystic idea of a wholly impersonal god who is the universe itself for something he never mentioned. That is sloppiness, plain and simple. And you now are trying desperately to wriggle out of that sloppiness by shifting your goalposts.



Please address the points that I am actually making, rather than the arguments that you wish I were making.

I did. You claimed that Cherbonnier "debunks the idea of God being literally "infinite"/"unlimited"/"unknowable"/"indescribable"/"omnipresent" spirit essence as described by Trinitarian views". He did no such thing. The Trinitarian view is not the mystic view, and therefore, Cherbonnier's arguments are not valid critiques of trinitarian views.


Are you going to feign ignorance when it comes the kickback that Cherbonnier is giving to these theological perspectives?

Put the urim and thumim down, dude. You bastardized his arguments. That much is quite obvious.


Are you going to pretend that there was no influence of the god of the philosophers upon Christianity?

I am rebutting your parrotted use of Cherbonnier's rebuttal of the mystic concept of an impersonal God.


Both in Catholicism and Reformed theology, there remained an incorporation of Greek philosophy.

And you've yet to link that to what Cherbonnier was REALLY saying. Because that link isn't there.


They did not outright reject Platonism, which has been a significant influence in Christian theology. This is quite obvious.

There is also MUCH in common between Platonism and Mormonism. Care for a few examples?



I never said that Cherbonnier agrees with every aspect of Mormon theology.

You said he "debunks the idea of God... as described by Trinitarian views. He did no such thing. Trinitarian views are not the same as mystic views that he was describing, and anyone who actually READ Cherbonnier's work, instead of thieving a quote from FAIR, would see that within the first 3 pages.


Your attempt to dodge the points being made by Cherbonnier is embarrassing.

:rofl: You stole the quote from FAIR, or some other anti-anti-Mormon site with no understanding at all of what Cherbonnier was even saying.


I brought up 3 ideas:

1) How is God "invisible"
2) God in relation to "spatio-temporal" existence (transcendence and immanence)
3) God supposedly being "wholly other" compared to man

And those questions were answered by Cherbonnier within the framework of how a MYSTIC identifies those terms, not a Trinitarian. I found absolutely nothing Cherbonnier wrote to be disagreeable to trinitarianism.


This was in relation to the second idea:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
7) In what sense is God transcendent and/or immanent?

"Transcendent," as generally used, means "beyond space and time." From what has been said about the mystical God, it is obvious that He is transcendent in this sense.

..., a spatio-temporal God would be "a Being besides other beings," and therefore incompatible with the mystical definition of unity. ...

The God of the Bible is neither transcendent nor immanent in the mystical sense. Being anthropomorphic, He is quite compatible with spatio-temporal existence. If he can be called "transcendent" at all, it is only in the sense that he is sovereign over his entire creation....

Neither is the biblical God immanent, in the sense that He is diffused throughout the universe. To insist that He is omnipresent would be to imprison Him. The biblical God can be wherever He wants to be. If He is "immanent," it is only in the sense that He takes an active role in his creation, and particularly in human history, guiding the destiny of nations in ways they little suspect.

In the biblical context, the meaning of "immanent" is thus not very different from "transcendent." God is immanent insofar as He acts in history. He is transcendent insofar as He acts triumphantly.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -

Bold added by me.


Do you agree with this explanation of transcendent and immanent?

Yes, especially since I know what Cherbonnier is actually arguing against with his use of terms.


I have not. What YOU have done is tried the change the subject by saying, "Well, Cherbonnier did not claim that God was an exalted man."

YOU changed HIS subject, and now you are moving the goal posts.


I never claimed that Cherbonnier argued for that. I also never claimed that Charbonnier was arguing against Ex Nihilo. In fact, I pointed out that I imagined that we would be in disagreement on that issue. What I DID do was point out some viewpoints of his which appear to be at odds with your theology.

And I pointed out that MY theology is not the same as what he was arguing against, so the viewpoints he was expressing are not applicable to a different theological framework.


In the next portion, I was simply contrasting your of an absolute "ontological divide" between God and man, with Cherbonnier's softer stance:

- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The doctrine of creation does not, as is sometimes held, fix a great gulf between two realms of being, the divine and the human. On the contrary, the existence which God bestows upon Adam does not differ in kind from his own. It is therefore misleading to speak of "discontinuity" between the Creator and his creation. Opposition between men and God there surely is, but it is volitional, not metaphysical.... It preserves neither the mystery of God nor the humility of man to insist a priori that God must be "wholly other"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

You can attempt to agree with Cherbonnier on one or more of these points, and then try to twist his words in order to pretend that they are in line with the Creeds of Christianity.

Considering what he was arguing against, there would be very little to have to "twist". He is arguing against a mystic impersonal god "force" that is the universe itself.


OR you can say that you disagree with Cherbonnier. OR you can disagree with the traditional understanding of traditional/creedal Christianity. However, your tactic so far has been to deflect and evade.

:rofl: I'd be willing to bet that you never read any of his work. You grabbed this from a Mormon apologetic site and ran with it just like they did. You don't understand a single thing he was arguing against.

Cow Poke
06-02-2014, 06:52 AM
Please address the points that I am actually making, rather than the arguments that you wish I were making.

Oh, the irony!
(http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2233-7up-reminded-me-of-our-friend-Robert-Millet&p=61808&viewfull=1#post61808)

seven7up
06-11-2014, 12:47 AM
... anyone who actually READ Cherbonnier's work, instead of thieving a quote from FAIR, would see that within the first 3 pages. ...You stole the quote from FAIR, or some other anti-anti-Mormon site with no understanding at all of what Cherbonnier was even saying. ... I'd be willing to bet that you never read any of his work. You grabbed this from a Mormon apologetic site and ran with it just like they did. You don't understand a single thing he was arguing against.

I gave the link for the original article. I myself quoted these sections from the original article, which required a detailed reading of the entire text. This accusation of yours is just another attempt to distract from the fact that you are dodging the questions I asked you.


Considering what he was arguing against, there would be very little to have to "twist". He is arguing against a mystic impersonal god "force" that is the universe itself.

I never said that the Trinitarian view is an "impersonal force". The sections of the text I referenced did not refer to the personal/impersonal aspect of the discussion at all. I was much more specific than that.

He was not just arguing against God being an impersonal force, but he is discussing in what sense God should be considered "invisible". Is God literally omnipresent? Is God "wholly other"? How is God considered to be transcendent and immanent? So, quit side stepping and just answer the questions Bill.


Oh come off it! You tried to use Cherbonnier's arguments against the mystic idea of a wholly impersonal god who is the universe itself for something he never mentioned. That is sloppiness, plain and simple.... You claimed that Cherbonnier "debunks the idea of God being literally "infinite"/"unlimited"/"unknowable"/"indescribable"/"omnipresent" spirit essence as described by Trinitarian views". He did no such thing.

I gave you the opportunity to explain how your views differ from the "mystic" perspective in relation to the three topics I mentioned in the last two posts. Yet you have refrained from doing so. Why is that? For example, if you think that Cherbonnier is arguing for the literal omnipresence of God, then post the section of text where you think he makes that argument OR you can argue that Trinitarians do not believe in the literal omnipresence of God.

Since you dodged the actual perspectives given in my previous two posts, I suppose I will just rephrase them and hope against odds that you will actually address these issues:

I brought up 3 ideas raised Cherbonnier:

1) How is God "invisible"
2) God in relation to "spatio-temporal" existence (transcendence and immanence)
3) God supposedly being "wholly other" compared to man

I gave an example, like Trinitarians believing God the Father is "invisible" as a matter of principle, or in a metaphysical sense. Cherbonnier argues against that:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -
5) In what sense is God invisible?

On one point, at least, mystic and prophet do seem to agree. Both speak of God as invisible. Once more, however, their agreement is apparent only. It dissolves in the light of the distinction between de jure and de facto. For the mystic, God so completely transcends the spatio-temporal world that the "finite" categories of seeing, hearing, and touching simply do not apply (except, perhaps, in some highly metaphorical sense). Such a God is invisible in principle.

The biblical God, on the contrary, is invisible simply as a matter of tactics. De facto, men seldom do see Him. Upon occasion, however, he does show himself: to Moses (Ex. 33:23), to the elders of Israel (Ex. 24: 10), to Isaiah (Is. 6: 1). St. John quite consistently refers to "that which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life . . ." (I Jn. 1 : 1 ).

That is, God retains the freedom to show himself or to withhold his face at will. As Rudolf Bultmann observes,

God is not invisible to the senses as a matter of principle. Indeed, Hebrew has no word for ‘invisible.’ God is invisible because he wills to be so."15

Perhaps one reason why God chooses to remain invisible for the time being is that He cannot yet trust men not to stare at him. The tendency to dissociate, to become a voyeur, is overcome only when men are as trustworthy as God. For most men, the vision of God will be postponed until we are perfected in love. In the meantime, we may well think twice before assuming that just because He has not shown himself to us, He is invisible "by nature."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Do you agree with this explanation concerning God being "invisible"?

If not, how does it contrast to your view?



This next one was in relation to the second idea:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
7) In what sense is God transcendent and/or immanent?

"Transcendent," as generally used, means "beyond space and time." From what has been said about the mystical God, it is obvious that He is transcendent in this sense.

..., a spatio-temporal God would be "a Being besides other beings," and therefore incompatible with the mystical definition of unity. ...

The God of the Bible is neither transcendent nor immanent in the mystical sense. Being anthropomorphic, He is quite compatible with spatio-temporal existence. If he can be called "transcendent" at all, it is only in the sense that he is sovereign over his entire creation....

Neither is the biblical God immanent, in the sense that He is diffused throughout the universe. To insist that He is omnipresent would be to imprison Him. The biblical God can be wherever He wants to be. If He is "immanent," it is only in the sense that He takes an active role in his creation, and particularly in human history, guiding the destiny of nations in ways they little suspect.

In the biblical context, the meaning of "immanent" is thus not very different from "transcendent." God is immanent insofar as He acts in history. He is transcendent insofar as He acts triumphantly.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -

Do you agree with this explanation of transcendent and immanent?

If not, how does it contrast to your view?



Finally, we have the concept of whether or not God is "wholly other". This is a common phrase used by classic theists, and Cherbonnier appears to disagree with it.

- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The doctrine of creation does not, as is sometimes held, fix a great gulf between two realms of being, the divine and the human. On the contrary, the existence which God bestows upon Adam does not differ in kind from his own. It is therefore misleading to speak of "discontinuity" between the Creator and his creation. Opposition between men and God there surely is, but it is volitional, not metaphysical.... It preserves neither the mystery of God nor the humility of man to insist a priori that God must be "wholly other"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Do you agree with this idea of God not being "wholly other"?

If not, how does it contrast to your view?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -


I did. You claimed that Cherbonnier "debunks the idea of God being literally "infinite"/"unlimited"/"unknowable"/"indescribable"/"omnipresent" spirit essence as described by Trinitarian views". He did no such thing. The Trinitarian view is not the mystic view, and therefore, Cherbonnier's arguments are not valid critiques of trinitarian views. ... You bastardized his arguments. That much is quite obvious.

Then please explain how these views above are actually describing Trinitarian views. If you think that these perspectives given above by Cherbonnier are reflective of the Trinitarian viewpoints, then feel free to explain it. Until then, you cannot claim that I "bastardized his arguments" with any credibility.


I found absolutely nothing Cherbonnier wrote to be disagreeable to trinitarianism.

I think that most Trinitarians would disagree with you. But you had your opportunity to explain, and refused to do so. Will you continue to just ignore the concepts being presented here?


-7up

seven7up
06-11-2014, 02:16 AM
Oh, the irony!

As you will see, this is going to be interesting. While Bill accuses me of supposedly "twisting Cherbonnier's" perspective, ... he is in for a rude awakening. He accuses me of not reading the entire articles, and then, a few posts ago, Bill said this ...


Cherbonnier makes a passing comment that Mormon belief in God being an exalted human is closer to correct than what the mystics of his time believed about an impersonal "God" who is merely absent from interacting with His creation. He concludes " The conclusion is that neither Jews, nor Mormons, nor other Christians need be embarrassed by the idea that God is a Person." ...

http://www.philosophy-religion.org/cherbonnier/defense.htm

Right ... a "passing comment" Bill. Did anybody bother to read THAT article? He is not just talking about "mystics" in the article, he is talking about Christian theologians as well.

Let's see what else Cherbonnier said in this article (http://www.philosophy-religion.org/cherbonnier/defense.htm) which is introduced by this sentence: "In the present paper Edmond LaB. Cherbonnier argues that the biblical and the Mormon understanding of God are indistinguishable." Thus, Cherbonnier specifically defends the LDS view of God as being Biblical.

Please read it all, but I will provide some snippets, including some which specifically defend Mormon/LDS perspectives and even quote LDS leaders:

1) The idea of a timeless eternity is incompatible with an acting God, for it would be static, lifeless, impotent. If God is an agent, then he must be temporal, for timeless action is a contradiction in terms. Hence the Mormon theologian, Orson Pratt, can say, "The true God exists both in time and in space, and has as much relation to them as man or any other being."

2) Mormons do not hesitate to speak of God as having a body. Nor is this any cause for embarrassment, because for them, as for the Bible, matter is not evil but good. A disembodied spirit is a thing to be pitied, as it is in the Bible. Hence the assertion of Joseph Smith, "All beings who have bodies have power over those who have not."

3) What then do the biblical authors mean when they speak of God? Are they speaking literally or not? Thanks to two centuries of scholarship, this is no longer a matter of guesswork, nor is it a question which anyone is free to answer as he pleases - anyone, that is, who respects the results of critical investigation. For biblical scholarship is unanimous in confirming what the Mormons have always held: that the God of the Bible is a personal Agent with a proper name. This conception might or might not be valid; that is a separate issue. But from Genesis to Revelation, the Bible conceives of God in the same terms that are peculiar to human beings, such as speaking, caring, planning, judging, and taking action.


Cherbonnier's arguments are not valid critiques of trinitarian views.

As this other article clearly demonstrates, Cherbonnier is was not just making arguments against a mystic or philosophical God of the Greeks, but often is addressing mainstream Christianity:

4) When Christian thinkers have tried to judge themselves and their religion by the rules of rational argument, they have generally found the God of popular piety to be a source of embarrassment.... Hence the tendency, in both Roman Catholic and Protestant theology, to distinguish between those beliefs which are suitable for mass consumption and those which are intelligible only to an elite. And hence also the tendency to look with condescension upon those branches of Christianity, often referred to as fringe groups... What are the reasons why this conception of God has not been taken seriously by intellectuals, Christian or otherwise?

5) For to say anything at all about what God has done implies a Doer; to say anything about his purpose implies a Purposer; to say anything about the word of God implies a Speaker. Abandon the premise that God is a Person and you undercut with a stroke everything else that is said about him, whether in the Bible or the Book of Mormon. In short, to use the forbidden word, the biblical God is clearly anthropomorphic - not apologetically so, but proudly, even militantly. As another biblical scholar, G. Ernest Wright, puts it: "Anthropomorphism thus indicates God's personal relation to history, and to assume that we can dispense with it as belonging to a primitive stage in our religious ~ development, is to separate ourselves not only from the Bible, but from the biblical conception of the true meaning of history."12

6) the consensus of most religious philosophers, have persuaded theologians that no thinking person could subscribe to the idea of God as Person. In the name of reason, therefore, they long ago made a fateful decision. They decided to tone down this conception and to reach an accommodation with the philosophical conception of "the divine." With the wisdom of hindsight, it is not difficult to see that their enterprise was doomed to fail. For while making overtures to philosophy, they could not, as Christians, abandon completely the anthropomorphic God of their own liturgies, hymns, and creeds. They were thus caught in a logical dilemma. For when they ascribe to the biblical God the attributes of "the divine" as conceived by philosophy, they tacitly contradict themselves. Though they aspired to rationality, they were trying to combine two ideas of God that are mutually exclusive, and were therefore bound to end in self-contradiction. It was the Mormon theologian, Parley P. Pratt, who called attention to this dilemma over a hundred years ago. Commenting on the philosophical attributes of God, he said, “It is painful to be compelled to admit that such wonderful inconsistency of language and ideas have ever found place in any human creed. Yet so it is.”17 In a less polemical vein, the writings of Professor Truman G. Madsen, of Brigham Young University, have clearly shown that the attempt to combine the biblical God with that of the philosophers is like trying to square the circle.18

7) In short, theology as traditionally practiced is a prescription for schizophrenia. Like other schizophrenics, its practitioners have developed strategies for rationalizing their problem. These include such technical devices as paradox, analogy, the via negativa, and two-level thinking. The most successful, however, has been the one already mentioned, the symbolic interpretation of the Bible. It is based upon the fact that the philosophers' God can never be described in words. For language only functions on the finite level; when applied to the Infinite, it breaks down. Hence, all statements about "the divine" are necessarily metaphorical and symbolic.

8) As was pointed out above, persons who interpret the Bible symbolically have made up their minds in advance in favor of the philosophers' God. They are therefore not prepared to hear what the Bible actually says, but only what they think it should say. By interpreting it symbolically, they subtly substitute the philosophers' God for the Bible's own, not after a fair hearing, but without one. Though the results may be convincing to the believer, the secular critic detects it for what it is...

9)The conclusion is that neither Jews, nor Mormons, nor other Christians need be embarrassed by the idea that God is a Person. They need not apologize for literal interpretation, for that does most justice to what the biblical authors meant. Nor need they apologize to traditional theology, for it has finally come to the end of a blind alley. Where then is the vitality in Christianity today? Where is it growing instead of shrinking? Among the so-called fringe groups who frankly do acknowledge that God is a Person. Is there perhaps a message in that for theology? Might it too be rejuvenated if it stopped deifying the subhuman and the impersonal? If it were based solidly upon the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, might it achieve the consistency that has eluded it? In the past this God has characteristically started from small and improbable beginnings. Mormons hardly need to be reminded of that. Would it be out of character for him to do the same in the realm of thought as well? It would not be the first time that he has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise.


But NOWHERE does Cherbonnier agree with you that God is an exalted human being with a human body.

He doesn't come out and say it explicitly, (although reading both quotes 1 and 2 above come close as he describes Joseph Smith's point of view as "Biblical"). In fact, existing in spacio-temporal reality, as Cherbonnier argues for, implies the idea as a definite possibility. Any honest person must concede that. And certainly we can say that Jesus Christ is fully Deity, and He IS an exalted human being with a human body. You add that to the fact that the Bible says that we are made in "the image and likeness of God". Cherbonner criticizes those who attempt to take such Biblical declarations as symbolic rather than reading the text plainly.


YOU changed HIS subject, and now you are moving the goal posts.

Am I? Or are you attempting to change the pillars of the classic Christian theology, which describe a god who is literally omnipresent, literally invisible, unknowable, "wholly other", transcendent, immanent, etc.

-7up

Cow Poke
06-11-2014, 04:39 AM
If Joseph Smith were truly "the Prophet of the Restoration" -- he sure got a lot of things wrong, and muddied rather than clarified. He totally threw away this alleged opportunity by following the lusts of his own heart.

Bill the Cat
06-11-2014, 09:11 AM
I gave the link for the original article. I myself quoted these sections from the original article, which required a detailed reading of the entire text. This accusation of yours is just another attempt to distract from the fact that you are dodging the questions I asked you.

Bull crap. It is blatantly obvious that you have no idea what Cherbonnier is saying, and you are importing Mormon theology into his philosophical discussion. You assume that when he says "anthropomorphism", he means a body similar to man's. He intends no such thing. He claims a "personal" God, meaning a localized center of consciousness that is capable of emotion, reaction, and concern for mankind.



I never said that the Trinitarian view is an "impersonal force".

That is the view of "god" that Cherbonnier is refuting.


The sections of the text I referenced did not refer to the personal/impersonal aspect of the discussion at all. I was much more specific than that.

You imported Mormon meanings into his words, which had no such baggage. I will discuss this as I go along in my reply.


He was not just arguing against God being an impersonal force, but he is discussing in what sense God should be considered "invisible". Is God literally omnipresent? Is God "wholly other"? How is God considered to be transcendent and immanent? So, quit side stepping and just answer the questions Bill.

I'll do better than that. Since you refuse to admit that you both 1) stole the Cherbonnier quotes from FAIR, and 2) import your own philosophical definitions to words he is using, I will cite where he is more distinct, just as I cited HIS definition of anthropomorphism, which refutes the Mormon one.



I gave you the opportunity to explain how your views differ from the "mystic" perspective in relation to the three topics I mentioned in the last two posts.

One step at a time. It is imperative first to show how you are misusing his ideas before I defend my own.


Yet you have refrained from doing so. Why is that?

Because I am not going to let you weasel out of admitting that you stole a quote that you simply do not understand. THAT is my priority right now. I will get to trinitarianism and Cherbonnier later. One thing at a time.


For example, if you think that Cherbonnier is arguing for the literal omnipresence of God, then post the section of text where you think he makes that argument OR you can argue that Trinitarians do not believe in the literal omnipresence of God.

No. First, we must see what Cherbonnier is refuting. I cite his piece "A. J. HESCHEL AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BIBLE" to see what he is arguing AGAINST, and the definition of "omnipresent" he is using:


on the one hand, the "god of the philosophers," the "one beyond all duality," an all-pervasive "something" which permeates the multiplicity of things in space and time; on the other hand, the God of the prophets, whose unity, in contrast to the fabrications of mythology, consists in continuity of personal identity, but who, unlike the philosopher's god, can create a world outside himself.

Notice he contrasts the "omnipresent" god of the philosophers as one who is contained in the "everything" of the existence, and that everything in existence is inside of him, with the "God of the Prophets" who created existence apart from Himself (just as trinitarians believe). So, this is another area where you fail to understand what he is arguing for and against.



Since you dodged the actual perspectives given in my previous two posts, I suppose I will just rephrase them and hope against odds that you will actually address these issues:

I didn't dodge anything. You don't even remotely grasp what it is he is saying.


I brought up 3 ideas raised Cherbonnier:

1) How is God "invisible"
2) God in relation to "spatio-temporal" existence (transcendence and immanence)
3) God supposedly being "wholly other" compared to man

I gave an example, like Trinitarians believing God the Father is "invisible" as a matter of principle, or in a metaphysical sense. Cherbonnier argues against that:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -
5) In what sense is God invisible?

On one point, at least, mystic and prophet do seem to agree. Both speak of God as invisible. Once more, however, their agreement is apparent only. It dissolves in the light of the distinction between de jure and de facto. For the mystic, God so completely transcends the spatio-temporal world that the "finite" categories of seeing, hearing, and touching simply do not apply (except, perhaps, in some highly metaphorical sense). Such a God is invisible in principle.



The biblical God, on the contrary, is invisible simply as a matter of tactics. De facto, men seldom do see Him. Upon occasion, however, he does show himself: to Moses (Ex. 33:23), to the elders of Israel (Ex. 24: 10), to Isaiah (Is. 6: 1). St. John quite consistently refers to "that which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life . . ." (I Jn. 1 : 1 ).

That is, God retains the freedom to show himself or to withhold his face at will. As Rudolf Bultmann observes,

God is not invisible to the senses as a matter of principle. Indeed, Hebrew has no word for ‘invisible.’ God is invisible because he wills to be so."15

Perhaps one reason why God chooses to remain invisible for the time being is that He cannot yet trust men not to stare at him. The tendency to dissociate, to become a voyeur, is overcome only when men are as trustworthy as God. For most men, the vision of God will be postponed until we are perfected in love. In the meantime, we may well think twice before assuming that just because He has not shown himself to us, He is invisible "by nature."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Do you agree with this explanation concerning God being "invisible"?

For the most part. For the former (the mystic god), Cherbonnier refers to their god who is wholly incapable of manifestation, vision, or experience, ever. He simply is wholly unable to be seen by anything as a matter of his existence. For the latter (the biblical God), Augustine describes similarly as Cherbonnier in refuting the Homoians. At the beginning of De Trinitate, Augustine explains Mt. 5:8:


“The fact is that the man Christ Jesus, mediator of God and man, now reigning for all the just who live by faith, is going to bring them to direct sight of God, to a face-to-face vision... that is what is meant by `when he hands the kingdom over to God and the Father,’ as though to say `When he brings believers to a direct contemplation of God and the Father’.

Augustine’s judgment is that all three Persons of the Trinity will be seen only at the completion of history. It is Augustine's belief, as Cherbonnier notes as well, that God is invisible as a matter of principle, not nature.


If not, how does it contrast to your view?

Cherbonnier differs from my view in that he claims the theophanies of the OT were God actually showing Himself, and my belief, like Augustine's were that they were temporary "created instruments of God’s presence" that ceased to exist after their disappearance. For instance, the pillar of fire, Solomon's Shekinah glory, the burning bush, Ezekiel's wheels, Daniel's finger, all were temporary creations by God in order for His presence to be visibly manifested. Once He was done with them, they disappeared from existence.




This next one was in relation to the second idea:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
7) In what sense is God transcendent and/or immanent?

"Transcendent," as generally used, means "beyond space and time." From what has been said about the mystical God, it is obvious that He is transcendent in this sense.

..., a spatio-temporal God would be "a Being besides other beings," and therefore incompatible with the mystical definition of unity. ...

The God of the Bible is neither transcendent nor immanent in the mystical sense. Being anthropomorphic, He is quite compatible with spatio-temporal existence. If he can be called "transcendent" at all, it is only in the sense that he is sovereign over his entire creation....

Neither is the biblical God immanent, in the sense that He is diffused throughout the universe. To insist that He is omnipresent would be to imprison Him. The biblical God can be wherever He wants to be. If He is "immanent," it is only in the sense that He takes an active role in his creation, and particularly in human history, guiding the destiny of nations in ways they little suspect.

In the biblical context, the meaning of "immanent" is thus not very different from "transcendent." God is immanent insofar as He acts in history. He is transcendent insofar as He acts triumphantly.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -

Do you agree with this explanation of transcendent and immanent?

When I understand what Cherbonnier means by both of those words, yes. When he refers to "transcendent in the mystical sense", he means one who is unable to interact with his creation. When he mentions mystic "immanence", he means one who is diffused throughout the universe, meaning parts are here and parts are there (sort of like dumping a cup of sugar in a swimming pool), while wholly being unable to interact with it. He remains "wholly other", amongst creation but not actually in creation.


If not, how does it contrast to your view?

It differs slightly from my view in that His transcendence is far more than simpy His sovereignty over it. He is both amongst creation and able to be in creation. Had creation never occurred, God would still exist.



Finally, we have the concept of whether or not God is "wholly other". This is a common phrase used by classic theists, and Cherbonnier appears to disagree with it.

- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The doctrine of creation does not, as is sometimes held, fix a great gulf between two realms of being, the divine and the human. On the contrary, the existence which God bestows upon Adam does not differ in kind from his own. It is therefore misleading to speak of "discontinuity" between the Creator and his creation. Opposition between men and God there surely is, but it is volitional, not metaphysical.... It preserves neither the mystery of God nor the humility of man to insist a priori that God must be "wholly other"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Do you agree with this idea of God not being "wholly other"?

Yes. God's existence is a personal one, not a metaphysical "otherness", incapable of speech or action. That is what Cherbonnier means by "wholly other". He is not referring to an ontological likeness. Cherbonnier differentiates what he means in his essay "THE THEOLOGY OF THE WORD OF GOD"



Is God "wholly other" than man? If so, then only negatives may be applied to him. Or is he the most universal, the most all-embracing essence? If so, we must call him "Being-itself," the "Absolute." Or is he a God who speaks? In that case, the truest words which can be applied to him, by analogy, derive from the only other realm of our experience in which we encounter true speech.

When Cherbonnier mentions a "wholly other" god, he is referring to something that is not personal in any way, shape, or form.



Then please explain how these views above are actually describing Trinitarian views.

1) Cherbonnier says God is not invisible by His nature, meaning He is absolutely impossible to behold by anything or anyone. Trinitarians agree with that. We believe that we will behold Him in the eternities as he is.

2) Cherbonnier says God is not transcendent in that He is unable to interact with his creation. Trinitarians agree with that. We believe that God interacts with His creation

3) Cherbonnier says God is not "wholly other" in that He is personal. Trinitarians believe that too.



If you think that these perspectives given above by Cherbonnier are reflective of the Trinitarian viewpoints, then feel free to explain it. Until then, you cannot claim that I "bastardized his arguments" with any credibility.

You did. You are importing Mormon definitions where they are unwarranted instead of finding out what Cherbonnier actually means.




I think that most Trinitarians would disagree with you.

I don't.


But you had your opportunity to explain, and refused to do so. Will you continue to just ignore the concepts being presented here?


-7up

As I said, I have to show how you are misusing him first before I could explain how to properly use him. AN\nd misuse him, you did, although I suspect FAIR is really to blame. You think he supports your view over mine, when it simply isn't true.

Bill the Cat
06-11-2014, 10:52 AM
As you will see, this is going to be interesting. While Bill accuses me of supposedly "twisting Cherbonnier's" perspective, ... he is in for a rude awakening. He accuses me of not reading the entire articles, and then, a few posts ago, Bill said this ...



Right ... a "passing comment" Bill. Did anybody bother to read THAT article? He is not just talking about "mystics" in the article, he is talking about Christian theologians as well.

:rofl: He says "A God who can communicate with mankind, and play a part in human events, is no doubt adapted to the mental level of children and of the uneducated, but is hardly taken seriously by the sophisticated". This is not talking about any Christian belief. He cites the likes of Paul Tillich, who often declared that God is being itself (pantheism, not biblical Christian beliefs). So, as we can see, his passing comment was about Mormon beliefs, as I said, being closer to correct than what the mystics of his time believed about an impersonal "God" who is merely absent from interacting with His creation. He also mentioned some Christian scholars who were well off the reservation, like Tillich.



Let's see what else Cherbonnier said in this article (http://www.philosophy-religion.org/cherbonnier/defense.htm) which is introduced by this sentence: "In the present paper Edmond LaB. Cherbonnier argues that the biblical and the Mormon understanding of God are indistinguishable." Thus, Cherbonnier specifically defends the LDS view of God as being Biblical.

What a joke! That was an introduction to Cherbonnier's article by a MORMON! Cherbonnier never defended the Mormon view of God having a body, nor did he bother to take the time to refute it, mentioning his limited time and scope later in the piece. He only mentioned the Mormon belief was consistent with a personal God. He NEVER agreed that God was an exalted human, which is the implication that Madsen so falsely claimed in the introduction.



Please read it all, but I will provide some snippets, including some which specifically defend Mormon/LDS perspectives and even quote LDS leaders:

1) The idea of a timeless eternity is incompatible with an acting God, for it would be static, lifeless, impotent. If God is an agent, then he must be temporal, for timeless action is a contradiction in terms. Hence the Mormon theologian, Orson Pratt, can say, "The true God exists both in time and in space, and has as much relation to them as man or any other being."

The true God exists whether or not time and space do.



2) Mormons do not hesitate to speak of God as having a body. Nor is this any cause for embarrassment, because for them, as for the Bible, matter is not evil but good. A disembodied spirit is a thing to be pitied, as it is in the Bible. Hence the assertion of Joseph Smith, "All beings who have bodies have power over those who have not."

Two things here. First, he is simply noting the consistency of your beliefs, not validating them. Second, Cherbonnier and Smith are both wrong in that demons had power over the man in the cemetery at Gerasenes, as did the demon who attacked the 7 sons of Sceva from Acts 19.



3) What then do the biblical authors mean when they speak of God? Are they speaking literally or not? Thanks to two centuries of scholarship, this is no longer a matter of guesswork, nor is it a question which anyone is free to answer as he pleases - anyone, that is, who respects the results of critical investigation. For biblical scholarship is unanimous in confirming what the Mormons have always held: that the God of the Bible is a personal Agent with a proper name. This conception might or might not be valid; that is a separate issue. But from Genesis to Revelation, the Bible conceives of God in the same terms that are peculiar to human beings, such as speaking, caring, planning, judging, and taking action.

Notice he does not say anything about having a human body. Trinitarians also believe in a God who is speaking, caring, planning, judging, and taking action.



As this other article clearly demonstrates, Cherbonnier is was not just making arguments against a mystic or philosophical God of the Greeks, but often is addressing mainstream Christianity:

4) When Christian thinkers have tried to judge themselves and their religion by the rules of rational argument, they have generally found the God of popular piety to be a source of embarrassment.... Hence the tendency, in both Roman Catholic and Protestant theology, to distinguish between those beliefs which are suitable for mass consumption and those which are intelligible only to an elite. And hence also the tendency to look with condescension upon those branches of Christianity, often referred to as fringe groups... What are the reasons why this conception of God has not been taken seriously by intellectuals, Christian or otherwise?

And then he goes on to cite unorthodox claims from theologians. So, no, he was not addressing mainstream Christianity because mainstream Christianity has never believed the things he is attributing to these "thinkers".


5) For to say anything at all about what God has done implies a Doer; to say anything about his purpose implies a Purposer; to say anything about the word of God implies a Speaker. Abandon the premise that God is a Person and you undercut with a stroke everything else that is said about him, whether in the Bible or the Book of Mormon. In short, to use the forbidden word, the biblical God is clearly anthropomorphic - not apologetically so, but proudly, even militantly. As another biblical scholar, G. Ernest Wright, puts it: "Anthropomorphism thus indicates God's personal relation to history, and to assume that we can dispense with it as belonging to a primitive stage in our religious ~ development, is to separate ourselves not only from the Bible, but from the biblical conception of the true meaning of history."12

And as Cherbonnier, and Wright, consistently delcare - anthropomorphism simply means having human-like responses and abilities. It has nothing to do with having a human body.


6) the consensus of most religious philosophers, have persuaded theologians that no thinking person could subscribe to the idea of God as Person. In the name of reason, therefore, they long ago made a fateful decision. They decided to tone down this conception and to reach an accommodation with the philosophical conception of "the divine." With the wisdom of hindsight, it is not difficult to see that their enterprise was doomed to fail. For while making overtures to philosophy, they could not, as Christians, abandon completely the anthropomorphic God of their own liturgies, hymns, and creeds. They were thus caught in a logical dilemma. For when they ascribe to the biblical God the attributes of "the divine" as conceived by philosophy, they tacitly contradict themselves. Though they aspired to rationality, they were trying to combine two ideas of God that are mutually exclusive, and were therefore bound to end in self-contradiction. It was the Mormon theologian, Parley P. Pratt, who called attention to this dilemma over a hundred years ago. Commenting on the philosophical attributes of God, he said, “It is painful to be compelled to admit that such wonderful inconsistency of language and ideas have ever found place in any human creed. Yet so it is.”17 In a less polemical vein, the writings of Professor Truman G. Madsen, of Brigham Young University, have clearly shown that the attempt to combine the biblical God with that of the philosophers is like trying to square the circle.18

Again, you have to understand what Cherbonnier was refuting, which was the views of the mystics, like Tilich.


7) In short, theology as traditionally practiced is a prescription for schizophrenia. Like other schizophrenics, its practitioners have developed strategies for rationalizing their problem. These include such technical devices as paradox, analogy, the via negativa, and two-level thinking. The most successful, however, has been the one already mentioned, the symbolic interpretation of the Bible. It is based upon the fact that the philosophers' God can never be described in words. For language only functions on the finite level; when applied to the Infinite, it breaks down. Hence, all statements about "the divine" are necessarily metaphorical and symbolic.

Again, this is Cherbonnier arguing against beliefs like Tilich.


8) As was pointed out above, persons who interpret the Bible symbolically have made up their minds in advance in favor of the philosophers' God. They are therefore not prepared to hear what the Bible actually says, but only what they think it should say. By interpreting it symbolically, they subtly substitute the philosophers' God for the Bible's own, not after a fair hearing, but without one. Though the results may be convincing to the believer, the secular critic detects it for what it is...

And when we understand what Cherbonnier means by "the philosopher's god", which I have repeatedly defined, we will see that using it in an attempted rebuttal to trinitarianism is wrong.


9)The conclusion is that neither Jews, nor Mormons, nor other Christians need be embarrassed by the idea that God is a Person. They need not apologize for literal interpretation, for that does most justice to what the biblical authors meant. Nor need they apologize to traditional theology, for it has finally come to the end of a blind alley. Where then is the vitality in Christianity today? Where is it growing instead of shrinking? Among the so-called fringe groups who frankly do acknowledge that God is a Person. Is there perhaps a message in that for theology? Might it too be rejuvenated if it stopped deifying the subhuman and the impersonal? If it were based solidly upon the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, might it achieve the consistency that has eluded it? In the past this God has characteristically started from small and improbable beginnings. Mormons hardly need to be reminded of that. Would it be out of character for him to do the same in the realm of thought as well? It would not be the first time that he has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise.

He noted that your view is consistent. Big whoop. So is mine. I believe that God is a person. 3 in fact. As does the history of trinitarian belief.




He doesn't come out and say it explicitly, (although reading both quotes 1 and 2 above come close as he describes Joseph Smith's point of view as "Biblical").

Only in the fact that God is a person, not an impersonal "it".


In fact, existing in spacio-temporal reality, as Cherbonnier argues for, implies the idea as a definite possibility. Any honest person must concede that. And certainly we can say that Jesus Christ is fully Deity, and He IS an exalted human being with a human body.

He was deity before becoming human, so no. We can not say He is an exalted human. to say so would imply that He had to be human before becoming exalted.


You add that to the fact that the Bible says that we are made in "the image and likeness of God". Cherbonner criticizes those who attempt to take such Biblical declarations as symbolic rather than reading the text plainly.

He never mentions this verse at all. In fact, in another piece, he claims the image of God is freedom to choose:


From within the framework of the determinist’s creed, however, this same freedom, the very image of God, is regarded as sin!

He also explains that being made in the image and likeness of God relates to God's character, not His physical appearance:


Thanks to the unaccountable fact of God's favourable disposition towards mankind, human existence has value without limit. In the classic OT expression, man was made in the image of God (Gn 126 96). This exaltation of the human status reaches its climax in the NT, which declares that the character of God Himself can be fully known only in a particular human life. Small wonder that Jew and Christian appeared to the educated pagan as anything but humble! To him, the prophetic exhortation to ‘walk humbly with your God’ (Mic 68) would be a contradiction in terms. The idea of walking with God at all would seem presumptuous in the extreme.





Am I?

I have no doubt in my mind.


Or are you attempting to change the pillars of the classic Christian theology,

No


which describe a god who is literally omnipresent,

On this, Cherbonnier and I disagree. For being somewhere, "wherever He wants to be" implies that He is not anywhere else at that time. This would mean that the person of God the Spirit could only indwell one person at a time, and thus have to leave everyone else. However, I've not come across where Cherbonnier ever explained what he meant by "wherever He wants to be" if God wanted to be in 2 places at the same time.


literally invisible

No classic theologian I know claims that God is solely invisible by nature, and unable to ever be seen. Grudem explains that He can ALLOW Himself to be seen, thus He is not solely invisible by nature. Something that IS NOT seen is not the same as something that CAN NOT be seen.


, unknowable, "wholly other", transcendent, immanent, etc.

-7up

I've already dismantled your objections to these as your plain lack of understanding of what Cherbonnier was talking about.

seven7up
06-11-2014, 07:04 PM
If Joseph Smith were truly "the Prophet of the Restoration" -- he sure got a lot of things wrong, and muddied rather than clarified.

If anything was unclear early on, it became clear as he learned and as revelations were given. By the time his mission and life was complete, many things were clarified, not muddled.


He totally threw away this alleged opportunity by following the lusts of his own heart.

You are assuming that.

He may very well have been simply following very difficult commands, which indeed were given by God, and were given in order to fulfill God's purposes.

-7up

seven7up
06-11-2014, 07:55 PM
He cites the likes of Paul Tillich, who often declared that God is being itself (pantheism, not biblical Christian beliefs).

Arguably, a God creating from absolutely nothing, creating an existence which is exactly what God himself has pre-imagined it to be, and thus is an extension of God's own imagination, is a form of pantheism, very similar to "PanENtheism".


So, as we can see, his passing comment was about Mormon beliefs, as I said, being closer to correct than what the mystics of his time believed about an impersonal "God" who is merely absent from interacting with His creation.

But again, it isn't just about God being impersonal, because Cherbonnier goes well beyond that in these two articles. He speaks against the idea that the Biblical God is literally omnipresent, against the idea that the Biblical God is immanent and transcendent, against the idea that the Biblical God has a supposed inherent characteristic of being "invisible", against the idea that the Biblical God exists outside of time and space. These are the same arguments that LDS make, and the same ideas that are criticized by non-LDS Christians.


Cherbonnier never defended the Mormon view of God having a body, nor did he bother to take the time to refute it, mentioning his limited time and scope later in the piece. He only mentioned the Mormon belief was consistent with a personal God.

He never criticized it, he defended it, and he even argues that it is consistent with the Bible:

"Mormons do not hesitate to speak of God as having a body. Nor is this any cause for embarrassment, because for them, as for the Bible, matter is not evil but good. A disembodied spirit is a thing to be pitied, as it is in the Bible. Hence the assertion of Joseph Smith, "All beings who have bodies have power over those who have not."


The true God exists whether or not time and space do.

Where did Cherbonnier say that?

I myself would not go beyond saying that the true God can exist outside time and space as we know and understand it.


First, he is simply noting the consistency of your beliefs, not validating them.

He praised the consistency of LDS beliefs, AND criticized the inconsistency of believing in an anthropomorphic God who is also, and in contradiction, supposedly outside time and space, supposedly literally omnipresent, etc.


Two things here. First, he is simply noting the consistency of your beliefs, not validating them. Second, Cherbonnier and Smith are both wrong in that demons had power over the man in the cemetery at Gerasenes, as did the demon who attacked the 7 sons of Sceva from Acts 19.

Only because the man allowed it, due to his spiritual weakness. But at least you are to the point of admitting that you are at odds with the perspective of Cherbonnier.


Notice he does not say anything about having a human body. Trinitarians also believe in a God who is speaking, caring, planning, judging, and taking action.

He barely stopped short of it, but existing in time and space implies having a corporeal existence.


And then he goes on to cite unorthodox claims from theologians. So, no, he was not addressing mainstream Christianity because mainstream Christianity has never believed the things he is attributing to these "thinkers".

So explain where mainstream Christianity describes God as existing within time and space. Demonstrate where mainstream Christianity denies that God (referring to the Father) is "invisible" as part of his nature.

-7up

seven7up
06-11-2014, 08:29 PM
Allow me to quote from CARM, the "Christian Apologetic Research Ministry", who are meant to be the mainstream Christians who oppose the LDS viewpoint.

Wholly Other:
"The term "wholly other" is used in Christain theology to describe the difference between God and everything else. God, the Christian God, is completely different than all other things that exist. God can be described by essential properties such as holiness, immutability, etc. But we have to ask how we, as finite creatures, can relate to the infinite God. It is difficult when he is "wholly other" than we are." http://carm.org/dictionary-wholly-other


Now let's see what Cherbonnier says about the idea of God being "wholly other":
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The doctrine of creation does not, as is sometimes held, fix a great gulf between two realms of being, the divine and the human. On the contrary, the existence which God bestows upon Adam does not differ in kind from his own. It is therefore misleading to speak of "discontinuity" between the Creator and his creation. Opposition between men and God there surely is, but it is volitional, not metaphysical.... It preserves neither the mystery of God nor the humility of man to insist a priori that God must be "wholly other"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Which side are you going to take Bill?

-7up

seven7up
06-12-2014, 12:26 AM
I'll do better than that. Since you refuse to admit that you both 1) stole the Cherbonnier quotes from FAIR,

You made the accusation. Now back it up. (It should be easy, all you have to do is take the quotes as they appear on the FAIR websites, and see how it corresponds to the quotes that I provided on this forum. If they are a perfect match ... then , well , you got me.)


First, we must see what Cherbonnier is refuting. I cite his piece "A. J. HESCHEL AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BIBLE" to see what he is arguing AGAINST, and the definition of "omnipresent" he is using:


on the one hand, the "god of the philosophers," the "one beyond all duality," an all-pervasive "something" which permeates the multiplicity of things in space and time; on the other hand, the God of the prophets, whose unity, in contrast to the fabrications of mythology, consists in continuity of personal identity, but who, unlike the philosopher's god, can create a world outside himself.


Notice he contrasts the "omnipresent" god of the philosophers as one who is contained in the "everything" of the existence, and that everything in existence is inside of him, with the "God of the Prophets" who created existence apart from Himself (just as trinitarians believe).

I noticed how he addresses the "schizophrenia" and the contradiction of God being supposedly existing literally everywhere at once, yet creating something outside of Himself and also being literally omnipresent in that as well.

Again I quote CARM, the "Christian Apologetic and Research Ministry", who frequently criticize the LDS perspective:

Omnipresence:
Omnipresence is an attribute of God alone. It is the quality of being present in all places at all times (Jer. 23:23.4). He is not bound by time and space.

What did Cherbonnier say about the idea of God being in time and space?

From the first article I mentioned:

"Transcendent," as generally used, means "beyond space and time." From what has been said about the mystical God, it is obvious that He is transcendent in this sense...., a spatio-temporal God would be "a Being besides other beings," and therefore incompatible with the mystical definition of unity. ...The God of the Bible is neither transcendent nor immanent in the mystical sense. Being anthropomorphic, He is quite compatible with spatio-temporal existence. If he can be called "transcendent" at all, it is only in the sense that he is sovereign over his entire creation...."

Then from the second article:

The idea of a timeless eternity is incompatible with an acting God, for it would be static, lifeless, impotent. If God is an agent, then he must be temporal, for timeless action is a contradiction in terms. Hence the Mormon theologian, Orson Pratt, can say, "The true God exists both in time and in space, and has as much relation to them as man or any other being."

So, in my last post to you, Cherbonnier indicates that we are the same kind of being that God is, as God is not "wholly other", and here above we see God being described as a "being among other beings". Please explain how you agree with these concepts, and please explain how you feel that Cherbonnier is disagreeing with the LDS point of view.


Cherbonnier differs from my view in that he claims the theophanies of the OT were God actually showing Himself, and my belief, like Augustine's were that they were temporary "created instruments of God’s presence" that ceased to exist after their disappearance. For instance, the pillar of fire, Solomon's Shekinah glory, the burning bush, Ezekiel's wheels, Daniel's finger, all were temporary creations by God in order for His presence to be visibly manifested. Once He was done with them, they disappeared from existence.

Nice try Bill. None of those references you just gave were actual theophanies. The real theophanies occured often in the Old Testament, for example, after Adam and Eve sinned and sewed fig leaves together, they "heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day"” (Genesis 3:8, God is literally walking in the garden). The implication is that God appeared in physical form since they heard Him walking in the garden prior to confronting Adam and Eve. Or when God appeared to Abram, such as Genesis 12:7, 17:1. The Shekinah glory was not a manifestation of God himself, but something that was cloaking God's actual physical appearance which was reserved for a chosen few, and only at certain specific times. For example, Jehovah did leave the pillar / cloud and did allow Himself to be seen within the Shekinah on certain occasions, "And the LORD appeared in the tabernacle in a pillar of a cloud: and the pillar of the cloud stood over the door of the tabernacle." (Deut 31:15) More notably, was when the elders of Israel saw God, "Then Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, 10and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself.…(Ex 24:9-11). And of course, we know that when God transfigured Moses, "The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend." However, when not transfigured, Moses was not permitted to see God's face and God either covered his eyes with his hand or had Moses hid behind the cleft of a rock. Regardless, the presence of the Lord as a literal person in spacio-temporal reality is described, and there is no indication that such an existence was only for a moment and then destroyed.

So, you are forced in your mystic and Greek philosopher influenced theology to insist that these were just temporary manifestations, and the personage of God that was seen by witnesses just disappeared after the event took place. Likewise, you must imagine that angels appear in human form, temporarily, but then such form just evaporates afterwards. There is poor Biblical support for such a position, but that is the position you take, because as Cherbonnier explains, your per-conceived dogma influences how you interpret the text.

"...persons who interpret the Bible symbolically have made up their minds in advance in favor of the philosophers' God. They are therefore not prepared to hear what the Bible actually says, but only what they think it should say. By interpreting it symbolically, they subtly substitute the philosophers' God for the Bible's own, not after a fair hearing, but without one. Though the results may be convincing to the believer, the secular critic detects it for what it is..."


For the most part. For the former (the mystic god), Cherbonnier refers to their god who is wholly incapable of manifestation, vision, or experience, ever. He simply is wholly unable to be seen by anything as a matter of his existence. For the latter (the biblical God), Augustine describes similarly as Cherbonnier in refuting the Homoians. At the beginning of De Trinitate, Augustine explains Mt. 5:8:


“The fact is that the man Christ Jesus, mediator of God and man, now reigning for all the just who live by faith, is going to bring them to direct sight of God, to a face-to-face vision... that is what is meant by `when he hands the kingdom over to God and the Father,’ as though to say `When he brings believers to a direct contemplation of God and the Father’.

Augustine’s judgment is that all three Persons of the Trinity will be seen only at the completion of history. It is Augustine's belief, as Cherbonnier notes as well, that God is invisible as a matter of principle, not nature.

Cherbonnier clearly argued that the Biblical God is NOT "invisible as a matter of principle" , but instead God can be seen, but chooses not reveal Himself fully at this time. Let's see it again shall we?

"For the mystic, God so completely transcends the spatio-temporal world that the "finite" categories of seeing, hearing, and touching simply do not apply (except, perhaps, in some highly metaphorical sense). Such a God is invisible in principle.
The biblical God, on the contrary, is invisible simply as a matter of tactics. De facto, men seldom do see Him. Upon occasion, however, he does show himself ... That is, God retains the freedom to show himself or to withhold his face at will. As Rudolf Bultmann observes,

'God is not invisible to the senses as a matter of principle. Indeed, Hebrew has no word for ‘invisible.’ God is invisible because he wills to be so.'15

Perhaps one reason why God chooses to remain invisible for the time being is that He cannot yet trust men not to stare at him. The tendency to dissociate, to become a voyeur, is overcome only when men are as trustworthy as God. For most men, the vision of God will be postponed until we are perfected in love. In the meantime, we may well think twice before assuming that just because He has not shown himself to us, He is invisible "by nature."

So, the view he is criticizing is the idea that God is invisible as a matter of principle, or by nature, or as an eternal characteristic, or however you want to put it. In that view, as you just expressed, God creates some kind of transient puppet manifestation which will appear to men, but it is not truly God appearing, and then it dissipates. Meanwhile, Cherbonnier argues that God is spacio-temporal and has a visible appearance, but is "unseen" simply because God chooses not to be seen or revealed to the whole of humanity at this time.

However I, 7up, declare that God the Father DID reveal himself to the world in the sense that Jesus Christ is an exact replica/copy/duplicate of who and what God the Father is. If you see Jesus Christ, the resurrected Lord, then you have seen God the Father. Not because they are literally the same being or person, but instead because Jesus is the exact same kind of being as God the Father, and is also "one" with the Father in will and purpose.


When I understand what Cherbonnier means by both of those words, yes. When he refers to "transcendent in the mystical sense", he means one who is unable to interact with his creation.

He goes well beyond that. He says that an immutable/unchanging/immanent God who exists outside space and time would not be one who interacts with spacio-temporal reality:

The idea of a timeless eternity is incompatible with an acting God, for it would be static, lifeless, impotent. If God is an agent, then he must be temporal, for timeless action is a contradiction in terms. Hence the Mormon theologian, Orson Pratt, can say, "The true God exists both in time and in space, and has as much relation to them as man or any other being."


When he mentions mystic "immanence", he means one who is diffused throughout the universe, meaning parts are here and parts are there (sort of like dumping a cup of sugar in a swimming pool), while wholly being unable to interact with it. He remains "wholly other", amongst creation but not actually in creation.

And then you come back to the schizophrenic viewpoint that you must hold. God is literally omnipresent, but at the same time is not literally everywhere in creation within the creation. All of this is unbiblical. As I said long ago, even the opening passages of the Bible describe the spirit of God as "hovering" over the primordial "waters" and moving across them when preparing to create from it. If God is literally omnipresent, there is no "moving" about it. And it would make no sense for Jesus to say, "hold me not, for I have not yet ascended unto my Father", because supposedly God is everywhere (literally omnipresent).


It differs slightly from my view in that His transcendence is far more than simply His sovereignty over it. He is both amongst creation and able to be in creation.

Again you fall back on saying that God is "both amongst creation and ... in creation" in some kind of literal omnipresence, which is a rather "mystic" viewpoint.


Had creation never occurred, God would still exist.

LDS agree that God existed before He created the Universe.

-7up

Bill the Cat
06-12-2014, 08:01 AM
:argh: Would you please stop breaking up my posts!!!???


Arguably, a God creating from absolutely nothing, creating an existence which is exactly what God himself has pre-imagined it to be, and thus is an extension of God's own imagination, is a form of pantheism, very similar to "PanENtheism".

You again have to redefine terms to force this "form". It plainly is not pantheism at its very core.




But again, it isn't just about God being impersonal, because Cherbonnier goes well beyond that in these two articles. He speaks against the idea that the Biblical God is literally omnipresent, against the idea that the Biblical God is immanent and transcendent, against the idea that the Biblical God has a supposed inherent characteristic of being "invisible", against the idea that the Biblical God exists outside of time and space. These are the same arguments that LDS make, and the same ideas that are criticized by non-LDS Christians.

No he does not!! In the article on anthropomorphism, Cherbonnier uses specific terms and specific definitions, which I have cited several times now. You and other LDS are using the same terms with different definitions, yet claiming they mean the same thing. What he means is not what you mean.



He never criticized it, he defended it, and he even argues that it is consistent with the Bible:

"Mormons do not hesitate to speak of God as having a body. Nor is this any cause for embarrassment, because for them, as for the Bible, matter is not evil but good. A disembodied spirit is a thing to be pitied, as it is in the Bible. Hence the assertion of Joseph Smith, "All beings who have bodies have power over those who have not."

No, he never defended it. He merely called it consistent. He never once said, yes God is an exalted human being, and that His "person" is one of flesh and bone.



Where did Cherbonnier say that?

Did I say he siad it? Did I cite him anywhere saying it?


I myself would not go beyond saying that the true God can exist outside time and space as we know and understand it.

That is William Lane Craig's understanding as well. I hold to the belief of classical theologians who declare the eternal "Now" that God exists in. But, I do realize this causes some other issues that I don't feel able to respond to from a philosophic standpoint.




He praised the consistency of LDS beliefs, AND criticized the inconsistency of believing in an anthropomorphic God who is also, and in contradiction, supposedly outside time and space, supposedly literally omnipresent, etc.

AS DEFINED BY THE MYSTICS AND PANTHEISTS




Only because the man allowed it, due to his spiritual weakness. But at least you are to the point of admitting that you are at odds with the perspective of Cherbonnier.

On this matter, yes. And he is absolutely wrong in this matter. I do not expect to agree 100% with everyone, nor do I expect anyone to be 100% correct, except Jesus Christ Himself. The Bible declares that




He barely stopped short of it, but existing in time and space implies having a corporeal existence.

No it doesn't. Spirits are non-corporeal, yet they exist in time and space. Even Talmage agreed that the spirit-man was not corporeal:


It is quite the rule to regard the soul as that incorporeal part of men, that immortal part which existed before the body was framed and which shall continue to exist after that body has gone to decay; nevertheless, that is not the soul; that is only a part of the soul; that is the spirit-man, the form in which every individual of us, and every individual human being, existed before called to take tabernacle in the flesh.

And laypersons too agree that spirits are not corporeal:


However, spirits cannot perform ordinances that can only be performed by corporeal beings




So explain where mainstream Christianity describes God as existing within time and space.

Omnipresence makes no sense if God is not existing within space right now.


Demonstrate where mainstream Christianity denies that God (referring to the Father) is "invisible" as part of his nature.

I've already cited Augustine's response to that, and I believe it suffices.


Allow me to quote from CARM, the "Christian Apologetic Research Ministry", who are meant to be the mainstream Christians who oppose the LDS viewpoint.

Wholly Other:
"The term "wholly other" is used in Christain theology to describe the difference between God and everything else. God, the Christian God, is completely different than all other things that exist. God can be described by essential properties such as holiness, immutability, etc. But we have to ask how we, as finite creatures, can relate to the infinite God. It is difficult when he is "wholly other" than we are." http://carm.org/dictionary-wholly-other

Matt also says


He is "wholly other". This means he is not physical like we are. He is not limited to space and time as we are. He's different--not the same as us.

Notice, Matt does not say that He is not personal, like Cherbonnier is using the term "wholly other" to describe mystic views. So, again, you are trying to shoehorn Cherbonnier's arguments where he had no intention of using them, and you are trying to mischaracterize Matt's beliefs.


Now let's see what Cherbonnier says about the idea of God being "wholly other":
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The doctrine of creation does not, as is sometimes held, fix a great gulf between two realms of being, the divine and the human. On the contrary, the existence which God bestows upon Adam does not differ in kind from his own. It is therefore misleading to speak of "discontinuity" between the Creator and his creation. Opposition between men and God there surely is, but it is volitional, not metaphysical.... It preserves neither the mystery of God nor the humility of man to insist a priori that God must be "wholly other"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



I already quoted Cherbonnier's definition of what he meant by "wholly other". You, again, are using his words to mean something he is not saying.



"God can not be known: He or it is "wholly other" and beyond words. When man becomes one with God, even this is unknowable, because there is nothing and no one to be known

Emphasis mine

Now, if you honestly can sit there with a straight face and say that traditional Christians believe God is "nothing and no one", then there is no further hope for this conversation.


Which side are you going to take Bill?

-7up

Both, considering they both say essentially the same thing.

Bill the Cat
06-12-2014, 08:37 AM
You made the accusation. Now back it up. (It should be easy, all you have to do is take the quotes as they appear on the FAIR websites, and see how it corresponds to the quotes that I provided on this forum. If they are a perfect match ... then , well , you got me.)

Well, the initial post you made mentioning Cherbonnier was here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?1803-Mormon-Trinity&p=54389&viewfull=1#post54389

The entirety of the list from Thales to Plotinus you stole was verbatim from here:

http://www.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/whothe.htm

So, unless you are Kerry Shirts, you stole from him.

Then you add a brief piece of commentary reminiscent of J.Reuben Clark's speech in One Hundred Sixteenth Semi-annual Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [Conference Report, October 1945]

Next, you list Tertullian and Origen directly from Bickmore's "Doctrinal Trends in Early Christianity and the Strength of the Mormon Position” on Pg 2 on the middle of the first paragraph

http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/bickmore-doctrinal-trends-in-early-christianity.pdf

You then make a simple reference to Cherbonnier's article. This piece is cited by both of them in other works, a host of other articles on FAIR, Jeff Lindsey, Kerry Shirts, and dozens of other sites. So I was wrong on that part for claiming that you stole "the Cherbonnier quotes" from somewhere else, since you did not actually quote him in your original post. But you did steal almost the entirety of the rest of your post without citing where you got them from, and that is against the rules.

seven7up
06-12-2014, 05:24 PM
On this, Cherbonnier and I disagree. For being somewhere, "wherever He wants to be" implies that He is not anywhere else at that time. This would mean that the person of God the Spirit could only indwell one person at a time, and thus have to leave everyone else. However, I've not come across where Cherbonnier ever explained what he meant by "wherever He wants to be" if God wanted to be in 2 places at the same time.


In a basic LDS gospel principles class, you will often get an analogy similar to this, often in reference to the Holy Spirit:

"The Sun itself may be very far away, but its light, heat, and influence can be felt by many here on Earth."

So Bill, if a satellite or radio transmitter can communicate and influence many things from long distances, why do you think that God, as LDS view Him, would be limited in that sense?

Even in mortality, Jesus Christ had power over the stormy seas without literally having to touch it all with his physical hands.



Brigham Young gave a more extensive answer:

"The great architect, manager and superintendent, controller and dictator who guides this work is out of sight to our natural eyes. He lives on another world; he is in another state of existence; ... God is considered to be everywhere present at the same moment; and the Psalmist says, “Whither shall I flee from thy presence?” [Psalm 139:7]. He is present with all his creations through his influence, through his government, spirit and power, but he himself is a personage of tabernacle, and we are made after his likeness (DBY, 22- 24).


-7up

seven7up
06-13-2014, 02:31 AM
Allow me to open this post with an excerpt from one of the more well known Christian creeds, the Westminster Confession of Faith, which states:

"God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible,..." (emphasis added)


In the article on anthropomorphism, Cherbonnier uses specific terms and specific definitions, which I have cited several times now. You and other LDS are using the same terms with different definitions, yet claiming they mean the same thing. What he means is not what you mean.

He specifically describes LDS ideas, and quotes LDS leaders. He does so in an entirely positive light, and explains why many of the LDS viewpoints are valid according to the scriptural text. That is obvious to anybody who simply reads the entire article.

7up wrote: He never criticized (the LDS view), he defended it, and he even argues that it is consistent with the Bible:
- -- - - - -- - -
"Mormons do not hesitate to speak of God as having a body. Nor is this any cause for embarrassment, because for them, as for the Bible, matter is not evil but good. A disembodied spirit is a thing to be pitied, as it is in the Bible. Hence the assertion of Joseph Smith, "All beings who have bodies have power over those who have not."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --


No, he never defended it. He merely called it consistent. He never once said, yes God is an exalted human being, and that His "person" is one of flesh and bone.

You and I both know that Deity can be BOTH Divine AND human (a person of flesh and bone). That is an essential premise of Christianity. The only difference is that LDS apply that concept to God the Father as well as to God the Son, because Jesus Christ is the "express image of the Father's person" (Heb 1). You are correct that Cherbonnier does not come out and agree with LDS on this specific point, but he certainly defends the theological framework which would allow for that possibility, as I discuss below.

Now back to the article. In the quote above, Cherbonnier defended two specific aspects of the LDS viewpoint, by saying that these two concepts are "Biblical". 1) Matter is good - thus the LDS viewpoint cannot be attacked from that position. 2) A disembodied being (a spirit only) would be better off if it had a body. Not only are these two LDS perspectives consistent with its own theology, but Cherbonnier clearly says they are consistent with the Bible. Please admit that Cherbonnier is calling the LDS views on these two things as being Biblical, for the sake of your dwindling credibility.

7UP: So explain where mainstream Christianity describes God as existing within time and space.


Omnipresence makes no sense if God is not existing within space right now.

But in a recent post to me, you denied the "mystic" view that God is diffused throughout all of space and time. So, do you claim that God exists in space in time, but God is not omnipresent in space and time?

Furthermore, when it comes to theophanies, you claimed that God must be creating some kind of localized puppet manifestations, supposed apparitions of God's presence (while God is at the same time literally omnipresent). Then this temporary things just disappear from time and space when the event is over. So that doesn't really count as God actually existing in time and space either. You see, you are forced to take these "schizophrenic" and contradictory viewpoints, just as Cherbonnier described it. You said:


...my belief, like Augustine's were that they were temporary "created instruments of God’s presence" that ceased to exist after their disappearance.

And your Biblical support of this concept is found where? And how can God have a local "presence", if God is literally "omnipresent"?

7up wrote: Only because the man allowed it, due to his spiritual weakness. But at least you are to the point of admitting that you are at odds with the perspective of Cherbonnier.


On this matter, yes. And he is absolutely wrong in this matter. I do not expect to agree 100% with everyone, nor do I expect anyone to be 100% correct,...

And you scoffed when I said, "I never said that Cherbonnier agrees with every aspect of Mormon theology...." So, you demonstrate your hypocrisy.

Nevertheless, it is obvious that Cherbonnier is describing the superior existence of spirit combined with physicality as the "Biblical" point of view, a concept which is closer to the LDS perspective compared to your contradictory viewpoint. A disembodied spirit is to be pitied.

As this conversation develops, you will see that Cherbonnier and the mainstream Christian view, including yours, do not agree in many places. Look at all the twisting you will have to do to the Westminster Confession of Faith , or twisting Cherbonnier, in order to try and pretend that they are meaning the same things.


Did I say he said it? Did I cite him anywhere saying it?

Right, so just admit that Cherbonnier is taking a position closer to the LDS position than yours when it comes to that topic.

7up wrote: Demonstrate where mainstream Christianity denies that God... is "invisible" as part of his nature.


I've already cited Augustine's response to that, and I believe it suffices.

You HAD to quote Augustine. You certainly couldn't quote Cherbonnier, because you must admit that there are different perspectives between them. Concerning God being "invisible", Cherbonnier argues that God should not be understood as "invisible" as a matter of principle. He quotes Rudolf Bultmann who said,

"God is not invisible to the senses as a matter of principle. Indeed, Hebrew has no word for ‘invisible.’ God is invisible because he wills to be so."


It is Augustine's belief, as Cherbonnier notes as well, that God is invisible as a matter of principle,...

Cherbonnier notes it, and disagrees with it. So, on this concept, as well as others, you are agreeing with Augustine, while Cherbonnier is agreeing with the LDS. Cherbonnier expands on the concept:

"For the mystic, God so completely transcends the spatio-temporal world ... Such a God is invisible in principle ... The biblical God, on the contrary, is invisible simply as a matter of tactics. De facto, men seldom do see Him. Upon occasion, however, he does show himself... Perhaps one reason why God chooses to remain invisible for the time being is that He cannot yet trust men not to stare at him.... In the meantime, we may well think twice before assuming that just because He has not shown himself to us, He is invisible "by nature."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
7up wrote: Do you agree with this explanation concerning God being "invisible"?

For the latter (the biblical God), Augustine describes similarly as Cherbonnier in refuting the Homoians. At the beginning of De Trinitate, Augustine explains Mt. 5:8:


For the most part. For the former (the mystic god), Cherbonnier refers to their god who is wholly incapable of manifestation, vision, or experience, ever. He simply is wholly unable to be seen by anything as a matter of his existence.

That is NOT what Cherbonnier said. Read his argument again. It is right there. Cherbonnier disagrees that God is invisible as a matter of principle (or as a part of God's nature.)


Augustine’s judgment is that all three Persons of the Trinity will be seen only at the completion of history.

And what? Only to disappear again and return to God's original "invisible" state?

7up wrote: the true God can exist outside time and space as we know and understand it.


That is William Lane Craig's understanding as well. I hold to the belief of classical theologians who declare the eternal "Now" that God exists in. But, I do realize this causes some other issues that I don't feel able to respond to from a philosophic standpoint.

So, when it comes to this, yet another specific topic related to the articles, you and other "classical theologians" are at odds with myself, with Cherbonnier, and with William Lane Craig. Again Cherbonnier explains this as follows:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
"Transcendent," as generally used, means "beyond space and time." From what has been said about the mystical God, it is obvious that He is transcendent in this sense...., a spatio-temporal God would be "a Being besides other beings," and therefore incompatible with the mystical definition of unity. ...The God of the Bible is neither transcendent nor immanent in the mystical sense. Being anthropomorphic, He is quite compatible with spatio-temporal existence. If he can be called "transcendent" at all, it is only in the sense that he is sovereign over his entire creation...."

Then from the second article, Cherbonnier disagrees with your God existing in the "eternal now":

The idea of a timeless eternity is incompatible with an acting God, for it would be static, lifeless, impotent. If God is an agent, then he must be temporal, for timeless action is a contradiction in terms. Hence the Mormon theologian, Orson Pratt, can say, "The true God exists both in time and in space, and has as much relation to them as man or any other being."
- - - - - - - - - -

7up wrote : (Cherbonnier) praised the consistency of LDS beliefs, AND criticized the inconsistency of believing in an anthropomorphic God who is also, and in contradiction, supposedly outside time and space, supposedly literally omnipresent, etc.


AS DEFINED BY THE MYSTICS AND PANTHEISTS

As we can see again, on yet another topic, your view and the mystical view are difficult to distinguish from one another.

7up wrote: He barely stopped short of it, but existing in time and space implies having a corporeal existence.


No it doesn't. Spirits are non-corporeal, yet they exist in time and space.

Again, I would not claim to know that spirits exist in time and space in the same way that we do, or in time and space as we understand it.


Even Talmage agreed that the spirit-man was not corporeal:


It is quite the rule to regard the soul as that incorporeal part of men, that immortal part which existed before the body was framed and which shall continue to exist after that body has gone to decay; nevertheless, that is not the soul; that is only a part of the soul; that is the spirit-man, the form in which every individual of us, and every individual human being, existed before called to take tabernacle in the flesh.

You are misunderstanding Talmage here, who used the term "incorporeal" to refer to how other religions think of the soul, and how they use the term to refer the non-physical aspect of our being. In an unrelated topic to what Talmage was addressing specifically here, is that it is very clear that LDS teaches about a "spirit body" (like seen by the Brother of Jared in the Book of Mormon) and a "physical body", which are both ultimately corporeal, because in LDS theology "all spirit is matter, only more refined or pure". That is why Talmage says that the spirit body is the "form" we existed in before being born n the flesh.


And laypersons too agree that spirits are not corporeal:


However, spirits cannot perform ordinances that can only be performed by corporeal beings

These "lay persons" were not being clear about the idea of spirit being a different kind of matter, in LDS theology, but still is matter nontheless. So, technically, by definition, if it is a form of it can be called "corporeal." That is why when the Holy Spirit was seen descending upon the Savior at his baptism, it was seen to have descended "like a dove", in bodily form.

This Greek term for 'bodily form' is somatikos, meaning: corporeal, bodily, having a bodily form or nature, pertaining to the body


Matt also says


He is "wholly other". This means he is not physical like we are.

We are not ONLY physical. We are spirit AND matter. Like Jesus.


He is "wholly other". This means he is not physical like we are. He is not limited to space and time as we are. He's different--not the same as us.


Notice, Matt does not say that He is not personal, like Cherbonnier is using the term "wholly other" to describe mystic views.

Where does Cherbonnier claim that Deity exists outside space or time? Furthermore, the resurrected Jesus demonstrated amazing abilities, which appear to be outside space and time as we know it, but the Lord still had a physical/corporeal body, and ascends and descends and has true physical and locational presence.

And, where does Cherbonnier claim that God is a different kind of being from what we are?


I already quoted Cherbonnier's definition of what he meant by "wholly other". You, again, are using his words to mean something he is not saying.



"God can not be known: He or it is "wholly other" and beyond words. When man becomes one with God, even this is unknowable, because there is nothing and no one to be known

Cherbonnier is saying that God is the same kind of being that we are. Certainly he isn't arguing for the "incomprehisible" God of the creeds. This statement by Cherbonnier is quite opposed to the kind of "ontological divide" that you espouse Bill.

- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The doctrine of creation does not, as is sometimes held, fix a great gulf between two realms of being, the divine and the human. On the contrary, the existence which God bestows upon Adam does not differ in kind from his own. It is therefore misleading to speak of "discontinuity" between the Creator and his creation. Opposition between men and God there surely is, but it is volitional, not metaphysical.... It preserves neither the mystery of God nor the humility of man to insist a priori that God must be "wholly other"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Emphasis mine

Do you get that Bill? He is saying there is not a metaphysical difference between God and man. And you say?


Now, if you honestly can sit there with a straight face and say that traditional Christians believe God is "nothing and no one", then there is no further hope for this conversation.

I am not saying that is the traditional Christian viewpoint. You are quoting a completely different article which addresses full fledged mysticism. In these two articles that we are discussing, Cherbonnier opposes some of the merged manifestations of mysticism within Christianity, where mystic perspectives were attempted to be injected into the interpretation of Biblical texts, but are at their core contradictory.

-7up

seven7up
06-13-2014, 03:43 AM
Well, the initial post you made mentioning Cherbonnier was here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?1803-Mormon-Trinity&p=54389&viewfull=1#post54389

I did not quote from Cherbonnier on that post at all. And when I did quote from Cherbonnier, it was starting in post #146 and I clearly did my own quoting from the original article, and nothing from any LDS websites was comparable to the sections I quoted, as you just certainly realized while performing your thorough investigation.


The entirety of the list from Thales to Plotinus you stole was verbatim from here:

http://www.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/whothe.htm


So, unless you are Kerry Shirts, you stole from him.

Actually, my list is not the same. I just checked it against Shirts' list. Mine has fewer philosophers listed and mine contains more brief quotes. That list was actually on my hard drive. Furthermore, even that list on the site you gave does not belong to Kerry Shirts. There is an old list compiled and passed on from unknown students, I believe from a philosophy class at BYU from years and years ago. Also note that I did not refer to anything close to Kerry Shirts' commentary on that page.


Then you add a brief piece of commentary reminiscent of J.Reuben Clark's speech in One Hundred Sixteenth Semi-annual Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [Conference Report, October 1945]

Really? My commentary was "reminiscent" of it? Good grief Bill.


Next, you list Tertullian and Origen directly from Bickmore's "Doctrinal Trends in Early Christianity and the Strength of the Mormon Position” on Pg 2 on the middle of the first paragraph

http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/bickmore-doctrinal-trends-in-early-christianity.pdf

"The Jews indeed, but also some of our people, supposed that God should be understood as a man, that is, adorned with human members and human appearance. But the philosophers despise these stories as fabulous and formed in the likeness of poetic fictions."

The original quote, which is often cited by many LDS authors, like John A. Tvedtnes in Is God Only a Spirit, is from Ronald E. Heine, Origin Homilies on Genesis (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 1982), 89.

No intention to be sloppy, but I am involved with 12 different discussions with several different people per thread, on this forum alone. The reality of how I got to that particular quote is that I remembered what Origen said, or at least a part of it, and it supports the point that I was making at that moment, then I put what I remember in the search engine because I did not want to misquote it. I have no problem citing sources, and if you like I can provide every single one, especially if it means that you will perhaps concentrate more on the points being made, rather than attempting to distract from the discussion and the arguments being made.

Another common quote on this topic from Origen is from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.vi.v.i.html, which indicates that Origen, among other early Christians, did not have any knowledge about the nature of God as being corporeal or not:

"We shall inquire, however, whether the thing which Greek philosophers call ἀσώματον, or “incorporeal,” is found in holy Scripture under another name. For it is also to be a subject of investigation how God himself is to be understood,—whether as corporeal, and formed according to some shape, or of a different nature from bodies,—a point which is not clearly indicated in our teaching."

This absence of a stance on the corporeality of God among these Christians allowed for the "mystic" or the Greek Philosophical Monotheism concept of God taking over as the popular viewpoint, and thus Christianity eventually embraced this idea of God being outside time and space altogether, and not of any corporeal nature or shape.

Uh oh, this paragraph just above might be "reminiscent" of an LDS article concerning the apostasy. I'm sure you can find a paragraph similar to it. Perhaps not the same words or phrases, but a similar theme.


You then make a simple reference to Cherbonnier's article. This piece is cited by both of them in other works, a host of other articles on FAIR, Jeff Lindsey, Kerry Shirts, and dozens of other sites. So I was wrong on that part for claiming that you stole "the Cherbonnier quotes" from somewhere else, since you did not actually quote him in your original post.

You are wrong about a lot of things Bill. Look at the quotes from Cherbonnier starting in post 146. I did not take the Cherbonnier quotes from anywhere but the original article.

-7up

Bill the Cat
06-13-2014, 06:03 AM
I will be gone for the next 4 days. Will get back to it once I return.

Bill the Cat
06-16-2014, 06:10 AM
In a basic LDS gospel principles class, you will often get an analogy similar to this, often in reference to the Holy Spirit:

"The Sun itself may be very far away, but its light, heat, and influence can be felt by many here on Earth."

So Bill, if a satellite or radio transmitter can communicate and influence many things from long distances, why do you think that God, as LDS view Him, would be limited in that sense?

Then the whole "indwelling" of the Holy Spirit is false. If He does not, in fact, dwell inside us, and only "influences us", then the scriptures lie.

John 14:16-17
And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.

Romans 8:9-11
But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. 10 And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.

1 Corinthians 3:16-17
Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 17 If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.

1 Corinthians 6:19
Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?




Even in mortality, Jesus Christ had power over the stormy seas without literally having to touch it all with his physical hands.

Did Jesus say He dwelled in the stormy seas? Or that He had authority over them?



Brigham Young gave a more extensive answer:

"The great architect, manager and superintendent, controller and dictator who guides this work is out of sight to our natural eyes. He lives on another world; he is in another state of existence; ... God is considered to be everywhere present at the same moment; and the Psalmist says, “Whither shall I flee from thy presence?” [Psalm 139:7]. He is present with all his creations through his influence, through his government, spirit and power, but he himself is a personage of tabernacle, and we are made after his likeness (DBY, 22- 24).

BY's quote does not address the separate god called "the Holy Ghost", so it is a red herring.

Cow Poke
06-16-2014, 08:10 AM
Just a quick aside...

In another thread discussing "Mother God", I found an article (https://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFViewer.aspx?title=8669&linkURL=50.1PaulsenPulidoMother-482bf17d-bbc5-4530-a7cc-c1a1b7e5b079.pdf) which suggests that THAT concept (Mother God) is in tension with another Mormon concept -- The Trinity!

(bolding mine)

The doctrine of a Heavenly Mother appears to be in tension with Mormonism’s trinitarian heritage.

Overemphasizing the Trinity, or the Godhead, while underemphasizing a Heavenly Mother raises questions concerning the equality of deified males and females and the nature and importance of marriage. On the other hand, overemphasizing Heavenly Mother breaks with traditional Christian, and even Mormon, understandings of the Trinity, but highlights the Church’s own proclamation that the most important social unit in eternity is the family. It is no simple feat to understand how these two social relationships—the Trinity and the eternal family—can best be understood together. For one, given traditional Mormon premises, a Heavenly Mother interacts with the Trinity in a certain and irresolvable sense. As there can be no spirit children without her, presumably there would be no Son without her and perhaps no Holy Ghost —no Heavenly Mother, perhaps no Trinity. It should be no surprise, then, that most Mormon leaders could not understand how Father or Mother could be divine alone. For either to be fully God, each must have a partner with whom to share the power of endless lives.

I have to wonder if this is one of the reasons the Mormon "Trinity" was devolved or changed from the original Trinitarian teachings of Mormonism.

Sparko
06-16-2014, 08:17 AM
Just a quick aside...

In another thread discussing "Mother God", I found an article (https://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFViewer.aspx?title=8669&linkURL=50.1PaulsenPulidoMother-482bf17d-bbc5-4530-a7cc-c1a1b7e5b079.pdf) which suggests that THAT concept (Mother God) is in tension with another Mormon concept -- The Trinity!

(bolding mine)

The doctrine of a Heavenly Mother appears to be in tension with Mormonism’s trinitarian heritage.

Overemphasizing the Trinity, or the Godhead, while underemphasizing a Heavenly Mother raises questions concerning the equality of deified males and females and the nature and importance of marriage. On the other hand, overemphasizing Heavenly Mother breaks with traditional Christian, and even Mormon, understandings of the Trinity, but highlights the Church’s own proclamation that the most important social unit in eternity is the family. It is no simple feat to understand how these two social relationships—the Trinity and the eternal family—can best be understood together. For one, given traditional Mormon premises, a Heavenly Mother interacts with the Trinity in a certain and irresolvable sense. As there can be no spirit children without her, presumably there would be no Son without her and perhaps no Holy Ghost —no Heavenly Mother, perhaps no Trinity. It should be no surprise, then, that most Mormon leaders could not understand how Father or Mother could be divine alone. For either to be fully God, each must have a partner with whom to share the power of endless lives.

I have to wonder if this is one of the reasons the Mormon "Trinity" was devolved or changed from the original Trinitarian teachings of Mormonism.

They keep talking about THE heavenly mother, when according to the LDS church, God has many wives. So it should be heavenly mothers. And since there are more of them than their are of the Father, maybe they need to form a union or something to get some praying rights.

Bill the Cat
06-16-2014, 10:06 AM
Allow me to open this post with an excerpt from one of the more well known Christian creeds, the Westminster Confession of Faith, which states:

"God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible,..." (emphasis added)

So, you respond to my post accusing you of using different meaning for theological words by citing just the words again?? :duh:



He specifically describes LDS ideas, and quotes LDS leaders. He does so in an entirely positive light, and explains why many of the LDS viewpoints are valid according to the scriptural text. That is obvious to anybody who simply reads the entire article.

He never once elucidated a Mormon belief and then claimed it was valid. He gave brief quotes and lauded their consistency from a philosophic standpoint in his opinion. I challenge you to cite one instance where he spells out a Mormon doctrine and declares the doctrine as true. And I don't mean just using a similar word, like "anthropomorphism", which I have clearly shown means something different to Mormons and him.



7up wrote: He never criticized (the LDS view), he defended it, and he even argues that it is consistent with the Bible:
- -- - - - -- - -
"Mormons do not hesitate to speak of God as having a body. Nor is this any cause for embarrassment, because for them, as for the Bible, matter is not evil but good. A disembodied spirit is a thing to be pitied, as it is in the Bible. Hence the assertion of Joseph Smith, "All beings who have bodies have power over those who have not."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --



You and I both know that Deity can be BOTH Divine AND human (a person of flesh and bone). That is an essential premise of Christianity. The only difference is that LDS apply that concept to God the Father as well as to God the Son, because Jesus Christ is the "express image of the Father's person" (Heb 1). You are correct that Cherbonnier does not come out and agree with LDS on this specific point, but he certainly defends the theological framework which would allow for that possibility, as I discuss below.

He defends the premise that it is consistent with the attribution of human responses to God, but he does not defend any such premise that it is actually true.


Now back to the article. In the quote above, Cherbonnier defended two specific aspects of the LDS viewpoint, by saying that these two concepts are "Biblical". 1) Matter is good - thus the LDS viewpoint cannot be attacked from that position.

To which Christians agree. Only mystics and gnostics believe matter is evil - thus his critique is against mystics and gnostics.


2) A disembodied being (a spirit only) would be better off if it had a body.

This makes an assumption that Cherbonnier means a pre-incarnate spirit. You are again taking something he broadly states from the Bible and shoehorning it to agree with Mormon doctrines of pre-existence. He is noting that your doctrine is not anti-biblical in that aspect alone. He makes no positive statement of pre-existence or of exaltation. He is philosophically refuting the idea that man shedding his flesh is better than having it, which, to me, is contrary to the Resurrection. Again, he is simply using a very few Mormon beliefs that are consistent with biblical principles to prop up his philosophical case against the mystics.


Not only are these two LDS perspectives consistent with its own theology, but Cherbonnier clearly says they are consistent with the Bible.

And I've said as much. But he does not go beyond that consistency to validate the majority parts of either doctrine.


Please admit that Cherbonnier is calling the LDS views on these two things as being Biblical, for the sake of your dwindling credibility.

Oh please. It's you who has zero credibility. You've plagiarized for years, apparently according to your own admission, and have acted like all of these quotes are original to you. Here is all that Cherbonnier is saying:

1) The LDS say that God has a body. This is consistent with the Biblical view of God being a personal God, and not just a passive force distributed throughout the universe, or one completely detached from it and unable to interact with it at all.

2) The LDS view says that matter is not evil. This is consistent with the Biblical view that disembodied human spirits are incomplete.

What Cherbonnier is NOT saying:

1) The LDS say that the Father has an exalted human body. This is a true doctrine as stated in the Bible.

2) The LDS view says that human spirits pre-existed creation. This is a true doctrine as stated in the Bible.

So, unless you have direct proof that Cherbonnier is claiming that the Father is an exalted human being from another mortality, or that human beings pre-existed as spirits before creation, then you are misusing what he is saying yet again.


7UP: So explain where mainstream Christianity describes God as existing within time and space.



But in a recent post to me, you denied the "mystic" view that God is diffused throughout all of space and time.

Do you know what "diffused" means?

dif·fuse
verb
past tense: diffused; past participle: diffused
/diˈfyo͞oz/

1) spread or cause to spread over a wide area or among a large number of people
2) become or cause (a fluid, gas, individual atom, etc.) to become intermingled with a substance by movement

It means the mystics think that God's whole existence, or "body" for lack of a better term, is spread out over and actually IS the universe, and that any individual thing is simply a small, "diffused" part of God.


So, do you claim that God exists in space in time, but God is not omnipresent in space and time?

No.


Furthermore, when it comes to theophanies, you claimed that God must be creating some kind of localized puppet manifestations, supposed apparitions of God's presence (while God is at the same time literally omnipresent). Then this temporary things just disappear from time and space when the event is over. So that doesn't really count as God actually existing in time and space either. You see, you are forced to take these "schizophrenic" and contradictory viewpoints, just as Cherbonnier described it.

No. That is just your stupidity and inability to seriously consider what I am saying. God DOES exist in space and time through His interactions with it. What Cherbonnier was saying is that theophanies disprove a mystic god who does not interact with time and space.


You said:



And your Biblical support of this concept is found where?

Where did the pilar of fire go? Where did the finger of God go?


And how can God have a local "presence", if God is literally "omnipresent"?

Stupidity like this is why you are not getting it. BECAUSE He is omnipresent, He can locally manifest, even in more than one place if He so chooses. Do you really think He left heaven abandoned while He was with the High Priest in the tabernacle? Or even when he supposedly came to see Joseph Smith? Was heaven unguarded?




7up wrote: Only because the man allowed it, due to his spiritual weakness. But at least you are to the point of admitting that you are at odds with the perspective of Cherbonnier.



And you scoffed when I said, "I never said that Cherbonnier agrees with every aspect of Mormon theology...." So, you demonstrate your hypocrisy.

No, moron. I took issue with your abuse of Cherbonnier in general, not a single specific aspect of it.



Nevertheless, it is obvious that Cherbonnier is describing the superior existence of spirit combined with physicality as the "Biblical" point of view, a concept which is closer to the LDS perspective compared to your contradictory viewpoint. A disembodied spirit is to be pitied.

:rofl: A spirit had to have a body FIRST in order to become "disembodied". When it is away from the body, it is incomplete, meaning when the body dies. That is what Cherbonnier was saying. He was not arguing for the pre-existence of the spirit.



As this conversation develops, you will see that Cherbonnier and the mainstream Christian view, including yours, do not agree in many places.

:rofl: Whatever you say. :ahem: What I am seeing is what I said at the outset - that you do not understand what he was arguing against, and therefore you are shoehorning his arguments to fit your preconceived agenda. And it's pathetic.


Look at all the twisting you will have to do to the Westminster Confession of Faith , or twisting Cherbonnier, in order to try and pretend that they are meaning the same things.

No I never did that. I am saying that what Cherbonnier means is NOT what you are trying to make him mean.



Right, so just admit that Cherbonnier is taking a position closer to the LDS position than yours when it comes to that topic.

No he isn't. He is taking a position closer to the LDS than the MYSTICS. Mine was never in Cherbonnier's mind when he was arguing against them. Yet, you refuse to even admit that he was arguing against the mystics, so your feeble attempts can be summarily dismissed. You are completely incompetent, as everyone is seeing it.


7up wrote: Demonstrate where mainstream Christianity denies that God... is "invisible" as part of his nature.



You HAD to quote Augustine. You certainly couldn't quote Cherbonnier, because you must admit that there are different perspectives between them. Concerning God being "invisible", Cherbonnier argues that God should not be understood as "invisible" as a matter of principle.

When someone does something as "a matter of principle", it is a choice, not an act out of obeissance to nature.

"The corporation that owns this store uses child labor. I am not buying things from here as a matter of principle."


He quotes Rudolf Bultmann who said,

"God is not invisible to the senses as a matter of principle. Indeed, Hebrew has no word for ‘invisible.’ God is invisible because he wills to be so."

Bultmann is using the phrase differently from how I am. :nsm: God is not love as a matter of principle. He is love by nature. He is not holy as a matter of principle. He is holy by nature. He IS invisible as a matter of principle, not by nature.




Cherbonnier notes it, and disagrees with it.

Not how I used the term.


on principle also as a matter of principle
according to a moral rule or personal belief

It's a choice for God to remain unseen. If He is completely invisible by nature, then the threat that no man may see Him and live is empty. It is basic Christian theology that God can mask His glory and appear in various forms, as He did in the OT.


So, on this concept, as well as others, you are agreeing with Augustine, while Cherbonnier is agreeing with the LDS. Cherbonnier expands on the concept:

"For the mystic, God so completely transcends the spatio-temporal world ... Such a God is invisible in principle ... The biblical God, on the contrary, is invisible simply as a matter of tactics. De facto, men seldom do see Him. Upon occasion, however, he does show himself... Perhaps one reason why God chooses to remain invisible for the time being is that He cannot yet trust men not to stare at him.... In the meantime, we may well think twice before assuming that just because He has not shown himself to us, He is invisible "by nature."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
7up wrote: Do you agree with this explanation concerning God being "invisible"?

For the latter (the biblical God), Augustine describes similarly as Cherbonnier in refuting the Homoians. At the beginning of De Trinitate, Augustine explains Mt. 5:8:



That is NOT what Cherbonnier said. Read his argument again. It is right there. Cherbonnier disagrees that God is invisible as a matter of principle (or as a part of God's nature.)

He is using the phrase to mean as a matter of the basic principles that define a thing. I am not.



And what? Only to disappear again and return to God's original "invisible" state?

No. There will no longer be a need for God to remain invisible by choice (Is that better?). We will be able to behold Him in all of His spiritual glory.


7up wrote: the true God can exist outside time and space as we know and understand it.



So, when it comes to this, yet another specific topic related to the articles, you and other "classical theologians" are at odds with myself, with Cherbonnier, and with William Lane Craig.

Craig postulates some sort of "divine time flow" which completely differs from ours.


Again Cherbonnier explains this as follows:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
"Transcendent," as generally used, means "beyond space and time." From what has been said about the mystical God, it is obvious that He is transcendent in this sense...., a spatio-temporal God would be "a Being besides other beings," and therefore incompatible with the mystical definition of unity. ...The God of the Bible is neither transcendent nor immanent in the mystical sense. Being anthropomorphic, He is quite compatible with spatio-temporal existence. If he can be called "transcendent" at all, it is only in the sense that he is sovereign over his entire creation...."

Then from the second article, Cherbonnier disagrees with your God existing in the "eternal now":

The idea of a timeless eternity is incompatible with an acting God, for it would be static, lifeless, impotent. If God is an agent, then he must be temporal, for timeless action is a contradiction in terms. Hence the Mormon theologian, Orson Pratt, can say, "The true God exists both in time and in space, and has as much relation to them as man or any other being."
- - - - - - - - - -

7up wrote : (Cherbonnier) praised the consistency of LDS beliefs, AND criticized the inconsistency of believing in an anthropomorphic God who is also, and in contradiction, supposedly outside time and space, supposedly literally omnipresent, etc.



As we can see again, on yet another topic, your view and the mystical view are difficult to distinguish from one another.

:ahem: Only if you completely ignore what the words mean in each system.


7up wrote: He barely stopped short of it, but existing in time and space implies having a corporeal existence.



Again, I would not claim to know that spirits exist in time and space in the same way that we do, or in time and space as we understand it.

Are demons spirits? Do they exist on earth? Can they interact with our time and space?





It is quite the rule to regard the soul as that incorporeal part of men, that immortal part which existed before the body was framed and which shall continue to exist after that body has gone to decay; nevertheless, that is not the soul; that is only a part of the soul; that is the spirit-man, the form in which every individual of us, and every individual human being, existed before called to take tabernacle in the flesh.

You are misunderstanding Talmage here, who used the term "incorporeal" to refer to how other religions think of the soul, and how they use the term to refer the non-physical aspect of our being.

No I am not. "Other religions" do not posit an "...immortal part which existed before the body was framed". That's you guys.


In an unrelated topic to what Talmage was addressing specifically here, is that it is very clear that LDS teaches about a "spirit body" (like seen by the Brother of Jared in the Book of Mormon) and a "physical body", which are both ultimately corporeal, because in LDS theology "all spirit is matter, only more refined or pure". That is why Talmage says that the spirit body is the "form" we existed in before being born n the flesh.




However, spirits cannot perform ordinances that can only be performed by corporeal beings

These "lay persons" were not being clear about the idea of spirit being a different kind of matter, in LDS theology, but still is matter nontheless. So, technically, by definition, if it is a form of it can be called "corporeal." That is why when the Holy Spirit was seen descending upon the Savior at his baptism, it was seen to have descended "like a dove", in bodily form.

This Greek term for 'bodily form' is somatikos, meaning: corporeal, bodily, having a bodily form or nature, pertaining to the body

Meaning a physical composition. And since the Greeks saw things like the wind as incorporeal, despite moving and even affecting corporeal things:

Whereas modern readers often take "incorporeal" to be equivalent to "nonmaterial," this is not Aristotle's view. Having outlined various philosophical accounts of the soul, all of which identify it with some kind of stuff, Aristotle concludes: "But all, or almost all, distinguish the soul by three of its attributes, movement, perception, and incorporeality" (I. 2. 405b). In other words, the soul could be incorporeal and still be composed of "stuff". One could believe that the soul should not be called "body" but still understand it as occupying space, as having a "place" (I. 3. 406a).

http://www.answers.com/topic/incorporeal#ixzz34p0KNlVU





He is "wholly other". This means he is not physical like we are.

We are not ONLY physical. We are spirit AND matter. Like Jesus.

You cited Matt Slick's use of "wholly other", and I showed you how he was using it differently from how Cherbonnier was arguing against a different usage than what Matt was employing. Now, you simply run ot the non sequitir



He is "wholly other". This means he is not physical like we are. He is not limited to space and time as we are. He's different--not the same as us.



Where does Cherbonnier claim that Deity exists outside space or time? Furthermore, the resurrected Jesus demonstrated amazing abilities, which appear to be outside space and time [I]as we know it, but the Lord still had a physical/corporeal body, and ascends and descends and has true physical and locational presence.

But that doesn't at all mean that the Son is not anywhere else.


And, where does Cherbonnier claim that God is a different kind of being from what we are?

Well, considering all he was talking about was the claim by mystics that God was not a "personal being", why would he need to even mention that?






"God can not be known: He or it is "wholly other" and beyond words. When man becomes one with God, even this is unknowable, because there is nothing and no one to be known

Cherbonnier is saying that God is the same kind of being that we are. Certainly he isn't arguing for the "incomprehisible" God of the creeds. This statement by Cherbonnier is quite opposed to the kind of "ontological divide" that you espouse Bill.

Again, you handwave what is blatantly obvious for your bastardization of his arguments.


- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The doctrine of creation does not, as is sometimes held, fix a great gulf between two realms of being, the divine and the human. On the contrary, the existence which God bestows upon Adam does not differ in kind from his own. It is therefore misleading to speak of "discontinuity" between the Creator and his creation. Opposition between men and God there surely is, but it is volitional, not metaphysical.... It preserves neither the mystery of God nor the humility of man to insist a priori that God must be "wholly other"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Emphasis mine

Do you get that Bill? He is saying there is not a metaphysical difference between God and man.

No. He is saying that the OPPOSITION between man and God is not metaphysical, but volitional - meaning the CONFLICT between God, who is Holy, and man, who is sinful is not one that results out of dissimilar existences, but is one of conscious choice. This fits into Cherbonnier's whole argument against the mystic, who declares that man is opposed to God because of their very nature and the nature of God, and that the conflict between man and God is one of choice, which both parties possess.



And you say?



I am not saying that is the traditional Christian viewpoint. You are quoting a completely different article which addresses full fledged mysticism. In these two articles that we are discussing, Cherbonnier opposes some of the merged manifestations of mysticism within Christianity, where mystic perspectives were attempted to be injected into the interpretation of Biblical texts, but are at their core contradictory.

But NOT Mainstream Christian beliefs, only mysticism masquerading under redefined Christian terminology... sort of like Mormonism tries to do.

seven7up
06-21-2014, 12:30 PM
7up: In a basic LDS gospel principles class, you will often get an analogy similar to this, often in reference to the Holy Spirit:
"The Sun itself may be very far away, but its light, heat, and influence can be felt by many here on Earth."
So Bill, if a satellite or radio transmitter can communicate and influence many things from long distances, why do you think that God, as LDS view Him, would be limited in that sense?


Then the whole "indwelling" of the Holy Spirit is false. If He does not, in fact, dwell inside us, and only "influences us", then the scriptures lie.

Jesus said he would be "with" the disciples. Is that a "lie" if Jesus is not literally standing besides them. This is a foolish game you are attempting to play Bill.

Let's go into some more detail, shall we? The Holy Spirit certainly CAN dwell inside of us. The baptism of Jesus is a perfect example of this.

God the Father is in heaven. (A local place and not omnipresent.)
Jesus Christ is in the water being baptized (A local place and not omnipresent.)
The Holy Spirit descends in bodily form like a dove (A local place and not omnipresent.)

The Holy Spirit dwelled within Christ at that time. Indeed, if the resurrected Christ (even with a physical body) can move outside space and time as we understand it, then we should not conclude that the Holy Spirit is restricted as well. Also, when the “calling and election is made sure” for a disciple, there can be an indwelling. Nevertheless, let's start simple, and we will see that your attempt at using these scriptures is inconsistent. Let's start with this one:

Romans 8:9-11
But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. 10 And if Christ is in you, …

For starters, when Paul says that they are no longer in the flesh, does that mean that they literally do not have a physical body? Are you calling Paul a liar? (Again, I am just using the same tactic you attempted to use in your opening statement above. Don't you see how silly it is?)

Is it the Holy Spirit? Or the “Spirit of Christ”? Are you a modalist Bill? Those scriptures you cited are scriptures that modalists use to attempt support their position. Fortunately, for LDS, this is a topic which is enlightened by LDS scriptures and teachings.

Our scriptures explain as follows, the Light of Christ, “proceeds forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space.” (see D&C 88)

Elder Joseph Fielding Smith explained that, “the Holy Ghost should not be confused with the Spirit [sometimes called the Light of Christ] which fills the immensity of space and which is everywhere present... it proceeds forth from the presence of the Father and the Son and is in all things. We should speak of the Holy Ghost as a personage as 'he' and this other Spirit as 'it', ...” (Doctrines of Salvation 1:49-50)

Bruce R McConkie also explained, “There is a spirit – the Spirit of the Lord, the Spirit of Christ, the light of truth, the light of Christ …. It is in us and in all things; it is around us and around all things; … It is everywhere, in all immensity, without exception; it is an indwelling, immanent, ever-present, never-absent spirit. It has neither shape nor form nor personality. It is not an entity nor a person nor a personage. It has no agency, does not act independently ...” (A New Witness for the Articles of Faith p257 - emphasis mine)

The Holy Spirit makes use of the Light of Christ to perform his work. McConkie went on to explain, “The Spirit of Christ, (or Light of Christ) is the agency through which the Holy Ghost operates,”

So, does the Holy Spirit literally have to be everywhere in order to be “in” us? Consider the language that Jesus uses in references to being “in” the disciples in John chapter 17:

“And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them (to the disciples); 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”

Now, is the person of Jesus Christ literally living within each disciple? Not only is it clear that this should not be taken in the way that you think should be inferred with the personage of the Holy Spirit, but it is also clear the “oneness” of the members of Deity should not be taken literally either.

Access to truth, and this Light is available to any person at any time. It is an indwelling because it literally is omnipresent, and the Holy Spirit accesses this indwelling in order to minister and personalize it for the individual, and it is in that sense that the Spirit of God can dwell within us. It is the same way that Jesus can be “with us” and “in us” even though he is a spirit which is embodied in a tabernacle of flesh and bone. We can have companionship with Christ even though He is not literally with us, or not literally in us. (This is why Christ is not a "liar" when he said those things.)

There are many places in the scriptures where the term “Holy Spirit” does not refer to the personage, but instead the gifts of the Holy Spirit, his power, influence, or ministry. These include verses like John 20:22; Acts 7:55-56; Acts 8:14-19 ; Acts 10:44-48 ; Acts 19: 1-6 (See McConkie Doctrinal New Testament Commentary 2:78)

7UP: Brigham Young gave a more extensive answer:

"The great architect, manager and superintendent, controller and dictator who guides this work is out of sight to our natural eyes. He lives on another world; he is in another state of existence; ... God is considered to be everywhere present at the same moment; and the Psalmist says, “Whither shall I flee from thy presence?” [Psalm 139:7]. He is present with all his creations through his influence, through his government, spirit and power, but he himself is a personage of tabernacle, and we are made after his likeness (DBY, 22- 24).


BY's quote does not address the separate god called "the Holy Ghost", so it is a red herring.

It is not a red herring, because it is the same concept. In the scriptures, a personage who has a true local presence, like Jesus (and for the LDS, God the Father and the Holy Spirit), can still be considered to be able to dwell “with” you and “in” you.

-7up

Cow Poke
06-21-2014, 12:34 PM
In the scriptures, a personage who has a true local presence...

I'm sorry, but Mickiel ruined this for me, always complaining about insults to his "personage". :smile:

As you were!

seven7up
06-21-2014, 01:02 PM
7UP: Allow me to open this post with an excerpt from one of the more well known Christian creeds, the Westminster Confession of Faith, which states:

"God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible,..."


So, you respond to my post accusing you of using different meaning for theological words by citing just the words again??

You have yet to cite evidence that mainstream Christianity views or defines these terms in the same way that Cherbonnier does. In fact, LDS are frequently criticized for believing, for example, that we can "see God". Anti-Mormons argue to me that God is literally "invisible".

7UP: (Cherbonnier) He specifically describes LDS ideas, and quotes LDS leaders. He does so in an entirely positive light, and explains why many of the LDS viewpoints are valid according to the scriptural text. That is obvious to anybody who simply reads the entire article.


Bill: He never once elucidated a Mormon belief and then claimed it was valid. He gave brief quotes and lauded their consistency from a philosophic standpoint in his opinion. I challenge you to cite one instance where he spells out a Mormon doctrine and declares the doctrine as true.

He calls the LDS doctrines Biblical. You are correct that he does not come out and say that the Bible is true. However, he says, on multiple occasions, that the LDS view is what is described in the Bible.

7up wrote: He never criticized (the LDS view), he defended it, and he even argues that it is consistent with the Bible. You and I both know that Deity can be BOTH Divine AND human (a person of flesh and bone). That is an essential premise of Christianity. The only difference is that LDS apply that concept to God the Father as well as to God the Son, because Jesus Christ is the "express image of the Father's person" (Heb 1). You are correct that Cherbonnier does not come out and agree with LDS on this specific point, but he certainly defends the theological framework which would allow for that possibility....
- -- - - - -- - -
"Mormons do not hesitate to speak of God as having a body. Nor is this any cause for embarrassment, because for them, as for the Bible, matter is not evil but good. A disembodied spirit is a thing to be pitied, as it is in the Bible. Hence the assertion of Joseph Smith, "All beings who have bodies have power over those who have not." - Cherbonnier
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --


Bill: He defends the premise that it is consistent with the attribution of human responses to God, but he does not defend any such premise that it is actually true.

Again, he defends that the concept is, “as it is in the Bible.” The only thing that he doesn't come out and say is whether or not he actually agrees with the Bible. This is a scholarly work, so that would be inappropriate.

7UP: In the quote above, Cherbonnier defended two specific aspects of the LDS viewpoint, by saying that these two concepts are "Biblical". 1) Matter is good - thus the LDS viewpoint cannot be attacked from that position.


To which Christians agree. Only mystics and gnostics believe matter is evil - thus his critique is against mystics and gnostics.

I only point it out so that we can both be very clear, and as you say “Christians agree”, that the LDS concept of God the Father having a body cannot be rejected based on this premise. That alone is reason enough to quote Cherbonnier's arguments from an LDS perspective, .... but there is more.

7up: 2) A disembodied being (a spirit only) would be better off if it had a body.


This makes an assumption that Cherbonnier means a pre-incarnate spirit. You are again taking something he broadly states from the Bible and shoehorning it to agree with Mormon doctrines of pre-existence.

I make no assumption. We can look at it as a broad and general concept. I certainly mean it in the broad and general sense. It is true if it refers to a pre-incarnate spirit. It is true if it refers to a post-incarnate spirit (like, for example, the spirit of Jesus before his resurrection on the third day). It is true for any personage of spirit period.


He is noting that your doctrine is not anti-biblical in that aspect alone. He makes no positive statement of pre-existence or of exaltation. He is philosophically refuting the idea that man shedding his flesh is better than having it, which, to me, is contrary to the Resurrection. Again, he is simply using a very few Mormon beliefs that are consistent with biblical principles to prop up his philosophical case against the mystics.

It props up the philosophical case against the mystic view of a disembodied God.

7up: Not only are these two LDS perspectives consistent with its own theology, but Cherbonnier clearly says they are consistent with the Bible.


And I've said as much. But he does not go beyond that consistency to validate the majority parts of either doctrine.

He doesn't have to. As long as the philosophical framework is both consistent with the Bible, and consistent with itself, the points made by Cherbonnier are valid. Therefore, Cherbonnier's arguments have not been misused by Latter-Day Saints when we point out that non-LDS have also made the realization that the framework for this philosophical viewpoint is right there in the Bible, and it is philosophically consistent.


Here is all that Cherbonnier is saying:

1) The LDS say that God has a body. This is consistent with the Biblical view of God being a personal God, and not just a passive force distributed throughout the universe, ...

2) The LDS view says that matter is not evil. This is consistent with the Biblical view that disembodied human spirits are incomplete.

On 2, you added the term “human” in there, when Cherbonnier made no such qualification. In fact, just above you yourself admitted that this was a general statement. Nice try, but I would have thought that you knew me well enough to realize that you cannot get those slick moves past me.


What Cherbonnier is NOT saying:

1) The LDS say that the Father has an exalted human body. This is a true doctrine as stated in the Bible.

LDS do not quote Cherbonnier by saying that he agreed that God is an exalted man.


2) The LDS view says that human spirits pre-existed creation. This is a true doctrine as stated in the Bible.

LDS do not quote Cherbonnier by saying that he agreed that spirits pre-existed creation.

-7up

Cow Poke
06-21-2014, 03:26 PM
7UP: Allow me to open this post with an excerpt from one of the more well known Christian creeds, the Westminster Confession of Faith, which states:

"God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible,..."

This is what Mormons used to believe.

The doctrines of God and man revealed in these sources were not greatly different from those of some of the religious denominations of the time. Marvin Hill has argued that the Mormon doctrine of man in New York contained elements of both Calvinism and Arminianism, though tending toward the latter. The following evidence shows that it was much closer to the moderate Arminian position, particularly in rejecting the Calvinist emphasis on absolute and unconditional predestination, limited atonement, total depravity, and absolute perseverance of the elect. It will further demonstrate that the doctrine of God preached and believed before 1835 was essentially trinitarian, with God the Father seen as an absolute personage of Spirit, Jesus Christ as a personage of tabernacle, and the Holy Ghost as an impersonal spiritual member of the Godhead.

Your error, Seven, is that you bought into this "line upon line" concept with regards to Mormon theology. What you CAN'T accept is that your religion started off Trinitarian, then changed throughout the Nauvoo experience.

Did GOD change from a Spirit to a "man" with flesh and bone? Or did Mormon Doctrine change?

seven7up
06-21-2014, 06:14 PM
God in Time and Space

7UP: So explain where mainstream Christianity describes God as existing within time and space. … in a recent post to me, you denied the "mystic" view that God is diffused throughout all of space and time.


Do you know what "diffused" means?

Yes. Yes I do.



dif·fuse
verb
past tense: diffused; past participle: diffused
/diˈfyo͞oz/

1) spread or cause to spread over a wide area or among a large number of people
2) become or cause (a fluid, gas, individual atom, etc.) to become intermingled with a substance by movement

It means the mystics think that God's whole existence, or "body" for lack of a better term, is spread out over and actually IS the universe, and that any individual thing is simply a small, "diffused" part of God.

You are using the definition incorrectly. The definition calls for something to be “intermingled” with the substance, but not being the same as the substance of the Universe itself. This is why when they say “diffused” it is not the same as saying that God IS the universe; it is not a statement of pantheism.

7UP: So, do you claim that God exists in space in time, but God is not omnipresent in space and time?


No.

Alrighty then.

7UP: Furthermore, when it comes to theophanies, you claimed that God must be creating some kind of localized puppet manifestations, supposed apparitions of God's presence (while God is at the same time literally omnipresent). Then this temporary things just disappear from time and space when the event is over. So that doesn't really count as God actually existing in time and space either. You see, you are forced to take these "schizophrenic" and contradictory viewpoints, just as Cherbonnier described it.


No. That is just your stupidity and inability to seriously consider what I am saying.

Um, you hadn't given your position yet. I cannot consider something that you have not described; And I certainly cannot consider seriously something that you have not explained consistently.


God DOES exist in space and time through His interactions with it.

So, God is NOT literally omnipresent? Are you taking more of a LDS position now, that God can interact and influence everything without literally being everywhere?


What Cherbonnier was saying is that theophanies disprove a mystic god who does not interact with time and space.

Not only that, but He explains that Catholics and Protestants tend to "condescend" the LDS viewpoint when their perspective on God becomes too much like a "person":
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
When Christian thinkers have tried to judge themselves and their religion by the rules of rational argument, they have generally found the God of popular piety to be a source of embarrassment. A God who can communicate with mankind, and play a part in human events, is no doubt adapted to the mental level of children and of the uneducated, but is hardly taken seriously by the sophisticated. Hence the tendency, in both Roman Catholic and Protestant theology, to distinguish between those beliefs which are suitable for mass consumption and those which are intelligible only to an elite. And hence also the tendency to look with condescension upon those branches of Christianity, often referred to as fringe groups, which refuse to make such a distinction and which make no apology for conceiving God as personal; that is, as a being who can make known his purposes for the world and carry them out in human history. No denomination holds more staunchly to this conception of God as Person than do the Mormons. - Cherbonnier (emphasis added)
- - - - - - - - - -
It is pretty clear that Cherbonnier is opening up his paper, by explaining that Protestants and Catholics are falling into error when they attempt to criticize the Mormon point of view of God living within time and space. Cherbonnier comes right out and agrees with the LDS view that God is temporal, by saying, The idea of a timeless eternity is incompatible with an acting God, for it would be static, lifeless, impotent. If God is an agent, then he must be temporal, for timeless action is a contradiction in terms.

Do you agree with Cherbonnier on this? Do you think that "mainstream Christianity" would describe God in the same way that Cherbonnier does here? Please show evidence that "mainstream Christians" do NOT view God as dwelling in a "timeless eternity".

7up: And your Biblical support of this concept (that theophanies were nothing more than temporary creations) is found where?


Where did the pilar of fire go? Where did the finger of God go?

That is what I am asking you (although the pillar of fire was not a theophany). For example, when God walked in the Garden of Eden, where in the Bible does it say that this was just a temporary manifestation of God that came from or returned to Nihilo?

7up: And how can God have a local "presence", if God is literally "omnipresent"?


Stupidity like this is why you are not getting it. BECAUSE He is omnipresent, He can locally manifest,...

But not literally omnipresent, right? Instead He is only omnipresent by means of interactions and influence. That is what it appears you were saying above. Correct me if I am wrong about what you were saying.

Furthermore, those local manifestations were not God himself, but instead, according to you, just an "interaction" from God. But, the text does not say that "a temporary apparition, which is not actually God, was walking in the Garden of Eden". It doesn't say that God created something to appear in the Garden and then just evaporated afterwards. It seems more like an appearance, much like the resurrected Christ to the Apostles.


Do you really think He left heaven abandoned while He was with the High Priest in the tabernacle? Or even when he supposedly came to see Joseph Smith? Was heaven unguarded?

There are plenty of beings (people, angels, etc) to occupy heaven, even if God the Father decides to walk in the Garden of Eden for a few days. Furthermore, His influence and power would still be there.

7up wrote: Only because the man allowed it, due to his spiritual weakness. But at least you are to the point of admitting that you are at odds with the perspective of Cherbonnier. And you scoffed when I said, "I never said that Cherbonnier agrees with every aspect of Mormon theology...." So, you demonstrate your hypocrisy.


No, moron. I took issue with your abuse of Cherbonnier in general, not a single specific aspect of it.

You have not effectively demonstrated how I have "abused Cherbonnier"; whether it be in general or specifically.

7up: Nevertheless, it is obvious that Cherbonnier is describing the superior existence of spirit combined with physicality as the "Biblical" point of view, a concept which is closer to the LDS perspective compared to your contradictory viewpoint. A disembodied spirit is to be pitied.


A spirit had to have a body FIRST in order to become "disembodied". When it is away from the body, it is incomplete, meaning when the body dies. That is what Cherbonnier was saying. He was not arguing for the pre-existence of the spirit.

Again. He doesn't have to be arguing for the "pre-existence" of a spirit. Just that, in general, it is preferable for a being to have a body, rather than not having one.

7up: As this conversation develops, you will see that Cherbonnier and the mainstream Christian view, including yours, do not agree in many places.


Whatever you say. What I am seeing is what I said at the outset - that you do not understand what he was arguing against, and therefore you are shoehorning his arguments to fit your preconceived agenda. And it's pathetic.

As seen above, he is arguing against a God who dwells in a "timeless eternity". This is an error about God's existence that Catholics and Protestants tend to make.

7up: Look at all the twisting you will have to do to the Westminster Confession of Faith , or twisting Cherbonnier, in order to try and pretend that they are meaning the same things.


No I never did that. I am saying that what Cherbonnier means is NOT what you are trying to make him mean.

In this section, I am saying that Cherbonnier argued for a "temporal" God. He says, "Quite consistently with this view, Mormons also conceive God as temporal, not eternal in the sense of timeless. ... Hence the Mormon theologian, Orson Pratt, can say, "The true God exists both in time and in space, and has as much relation to them as man or any other being."

By the way, the ... in the above quote is where Cherbonnier chimes in, and gives his agreement.

7UP: Right, so just admit that Cherbonnier is taking a position closer to the LDS position than yours when it comes to that topic.


No he isn't. He is taking a position closer to the LDS than the MYSTICS. Mine was never in Cherbonnier's mind when he was arguing against them. Yet, you refuse to even admit that he was arguing against the mystics, so your feeble attempts can be summarily dismissed. You are completely incompetent, as everyone is seeing it.

He hadn't even brought up "mystics" in this article (http://www.philosophy-religion.org/cherbonnier/defense.htm). The only groups he brought up so far in the text, as seen above, were "Catholics" and "Protestants", and how they criticize Mormons for believing the concepts that he goes on to describe.

It is only recently, and possibly thanks to Cherbonnier and thinkers like him, that some Christians begun to doubt the idea of God in a "timeless eternity", or an "eternal now". In fact, as you have mentioned, William Lane Craig does not argue for a timeless God. He has spent considerable time and energy trying to convince other "mainstream Christians" that God does exist in some kind of temporal existence. Only by looking into this kind of philosophy, do people realize the problems that exist with a "timeless eternity" and that God dwells in that "timeless eternity". Often, Christians will say that God dwells "outside of time and space". You have expressed the same thing.


I hold to the belief of classical theologians who declare the eternal "Now" that God exists in. But, I do realize this causes some other issues that I don't feel able to respond to from a philosophic standpoint.

Well, there you go then.

By the way, what you said earlier an apparent contradiction,


Spirits are non-corporeal, yet they exist in time and space.

You say that spirits exist in time and space. So, are you saying that God is not a spirit? You may have to add another caveat in your theology to cover that as well.

So, that covers God in Time, and it partially covers God in space.

-7up

seven7up
06-21-2014, 06:19 PM
Did GOD change from a Spirit to a "man" with flesh and bone? Or did Mormon Doctrine change?


The concept of God, and how LDS understood God, likely changed.

Mormons were essentially Protestant converts. What they knew and understood about God was based from protestant doctrines. Then revelations in the restoration came forward "line upon line, and precept upon precept" which changed their understanding of who and what God is.

-7up

Cow Poke
06-21-2014, 07:15 PM
The concept of God, and how LDS understood God, likely changed.

So, Smith had a brand new clean slate upon which to "restore" the Gospel, but he missed that opportunity? :huh:


Mormons were essentially Protestant converts. What they knew and understood about God was based from protestant doctrines.

Smith had a beautiful opportunity to set that straight from the "get go".


Then revelations in the restoration came forward "line upon line, and precept upon precept" which changed their understanding of who and what God is.

-7up

That's a steaming load of horsie poo, Seven, and I have a hard time believing you can say that with a straight face. It's just GOOFY to believe that God called a Prophet to RESTORE the Gospel, and he stumbled right out of the gate. This is one of many reasons I don't believe Smith was a prophet at all, but was making it up as he went along.

GOD: "OK, Joseph, you're going to RESTORE the Gospel and make things right, but I'm going to let you stumble around preaching and teaching what is already being preached by the Churches you claimed I condemned, then we'll fine tune it as we go along". :no:

Cow Poke
06-21-2014, 08:28 PM
Mormons were essentially Protestant converts. What they knew and understood about God was based from protestant doctrines.

It's just ASTOUNDING to me that you're suckered into believing that God called "The Prophet of the Restoration" to set things straight, yet He allowed Smith to teach the SAME allegedly CORRUPT GOSPEL from the Protestant Churches that God SUPPOSEDLY told him not to join because they were... here's the SISSIFIED version currently on your website:

As a young boy in 1820, Joseph Smith wanted to know which church was true. As he searched the Bible for help, he read that he should ask of God. Acting on this counsel, Joseph went into the woods near his home and prayed. Suddenly, a light shone above him and Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him. When Joseph asked which church he should join, the Savior told him to join none of the churches then in existence because they were teaching incorrect doctrines. Through this experience and many others that followed, the Lord chose Joseph to be His prophet and to restore the gospel of Jesus Christ and His Church to the earth.

Here's the non-sissified version...
19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

Seriously, Seven --- you're sounding like Jay Carney trying his best to put lipstick on Obama's policies. :glare: (He gave up, by the way)

So, lemme get this straight.... God supposedly calls Smith to set the record straight (That's what the "Prophet of the Restoration" is supposed to do, yes?) but He allows Smith to use the same "all wrong" "abominable creeds" and "corrupt professions" that the Protestants were teaching? :huh:

That's just downright goofy.

seven7up
06-21-2014, 09:43 PM
So, Smith had a brand new clean slate upon which to "restore" the Gospel, but he missed that opportunity?

He didn't miss the opportunity. God used Joseph to restore the gospel. It worked, despite having to work through imperfect human instruments.


Smith had a beautiful opportunity to set that straight from the "get go".

That isn't how religious movements work. Jesus didn't reveal everything to the apostles/disciples from the "get go" either.


It's just GOOFY to believe that God called a Prophet to RESTORE the Gospel, and he stumbled right out of the gate.

It is natural to make assumptions. In the Book of Mormon, the Lord showed himself to the Brother of Jared. Since this was before the incarnation, the Spirit of the Lord was a "personage of spirit". The Lord said,

"Do you see that you are created after my own image? ... all men were created in the beginning after my own image. Behold, this body, which you now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit." (Ether 3)

So, this was when Jesus Christ had not yet entered mortality. So, when LDS read this, and with Joseph's account of "two personages", the Father and the Son, it was assumed that the Father was a "personage of spirit" much like the Brother of Jared had witnessed. This assumption was revealed to be false, and then it was understood that the Father and Son should each be understood as resurrected beings.

This corresponds to the Biblical text, for example, in John chapter 5, the Savior says, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel." Then the Savior begins to describe the future resurrection, "For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will." However, the verses I want you to really pay attention to are verses 25 and 26, "The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself." (John 5:25-26)

So, yes. The Father has life in himself in the same sense as the dead who are resurrected will have life. The Father is a resurrected being, and the Son is a resurrected being. That is the truth.



GOD: "OK, Joseph, you're going to RESTORE the Gospel and make things right, but I'm going to let you stumble around preaching and teaching what is already being preached by the Churches you claimed I condemned, then we'll fine tune it as we go along".

Yes, God does allow men to stumble. That is pretty obvious. The Bible demonstrates this quite well. And it wasn't the same as what was other churches were teaching, as I just demonstrated from the Brother of Jared account. Other churches were not teaching that man was actually made in the image and likeness of God.

So, your criticism here does not have as much merit as you had hoped. If it took Mormons time to come around to the understand these new revelations ... well, so what?

-7up

Cow Poke
06-22-2014, 04:30 AM
He didn't miss the opportunity.

Correct -- he just totally made it up.


God used Joseph to restore the gospel.

That's beyond goofy.

Cow Poke
06-22-2014, 04:32 AM
That isn't how religious movements work. Jesus didn't reveal everything to the apostles/disciples from the "get go" either.

Show me ONE THING that Jesus taught, that he had to walk back and say, "OK, guys -- sorry* -- I was wrong about that, so let me set it straight". :shrug:

Comparing your Prophet of Trickery and Deceit to Jesus is, again, just beyond goofy. And, are you admitting Mormonism is just a "religious movement"? :wink:





*What your Church does is even worse --- there's not a "sorry, we were wrong", there's just historical revisionism and then these coverups like, "well, he didn't get it wrong, it's GOD'S fault for not revealing the truth to Joseph Smith in the first place, and let him go out on a limb with false information".

Why can't you see that's what you're doing, Seven? Your guy was SUPPOSEDLY a PROPHET who heard DIRECTLY from God -- Heck, he even came up with multiple accounts of his FIRST VISION of God, and met him in the WOODS!

Either your "prophet" HEARD from God, or he was making it up as he went along.

Look at all the flim flam you have to spew forth to try to cover for his deception. :glare:

Bill the Cat
06-23-2014, 07:25 AM
7up: In a basic LDS gospel principles class, you will often get an analogy similar to this, often in reference to the Holy Spirit:
"The Sun itself may be very far away, but its light, heat, and influence can be felt by many here on Earth."
So Bill, if a satellite or radio transmitter can communicate and influence many things from long distances, why do you think that God, as LDS view Him, would be limited in that sense?



Jesus said he would be "with" the disciples. Is that a "lie" if Jesus is not literally standing besides them. This is a foolish game you are attempting to play Bill.

From a Trinitarian perspective, He is with us through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It is not foolish. It is basic Trinitarian doctrine. Yet ANOTHER thing you can't get through your skull.



Let's go into some more detail, shall we? The Holy Spirit certainly CAN dwell inside of us. The baptism of Jesus is a perfect example of this.

According to you though, the Holy Spirit was nowhere else except inside Jesus.


God the Father is in heaven. (A local place and not omnipresent.)

He is in heaven, meaning that is the localized manifestation of His glory.


Jesus Christ is in the water being baptized (A local place and not omnipresent.)

Which would mean that God no longer had any wisdom in heaven, since Jesus is God's Wisdom.


The Holy Spirit descends in bodily form like a dove (A local place and not omnipresent.)

Which means that it is no anywhere else in heaven or earth.


The Holy Spirit dwelled within Christ at that time. Indeed, if the resurrected Christ (even with a physical body) can move outside space and time as we understand it, then we should not conclude that the Holy Spirit is restricted as well. Also, when the “calling and election is made sure” for a disciple, there can be an indwelling.

A localized presence can not dwell in more than one place. So, something can not dwell in more than one "house" at a time.


Nevertheless, let's start simple, and we will see that your attempt at using these scriptures is inconsistent.

This should be a hoot!


Let's start with this one:

Romans 8:9-11
But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. 10 And if Christ is in you, …

For starters, when Paul says that they are no longer in the flesh, does that mean that they literally do not have a physical body?

Of course not. It means that the flesh is not the one ruling them. It is the spirit that lives within them that leads them. But indeed, the Spirit of God lives within them.


Are you calling Paul a liar? (Again, I am just using the same tactic you attempted to use in your opening statement above. Don't you see how silly it is?)

No. I am allowing the context of the verse to give it meaning.


Is it the Holy Spirit? Or the “Spirit of Christ”?

There is no difference between the two. The "Spirit of Christ" is the Holy Spirit.


Are you a modalist Bill?

Are you a Strangite?


Those scriptures you cited are scriptures that modalists use to attempt support their position.

So what? They, just like you, ignore other scriptures that refute their abuse of one verse.


Fortunately, for LDS, this is a topic which is enlightened by LDS scriptures and teachings.

Trying desperately not to snicker too loudly...


Our scriptures explain as follows, the Light of Christ, “proceeds forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space.” (see D&C 88)

Elder Joseph Fielding Smith explained that, “the Holy Ghost should not be confused with the Spirit [sometimes called the Light of Christ] which fills the immensity of space and which is everywhere present... it proceeds forth from the presence of the Father and the Son and is in all things. We should speak of the Holy Ghost as a personage as 'he' and this other Spirit as 'it', ...” (Doctrines of Salvation 1:49-50)

More made up crap from J.F. Smith to try to cover up yet another giant hole in Mormon polytheism.



Bruce R McConkie also explained, “There is a spirit – the Spirit of the Lord, the Spirit of Christ, the light of truth, the light of Christ …. It is in us and in all things; it is around us and around all things; … It is everywhere, in all immensity, without exception; it is an indwelling, immanent, ever-present, never-absent spirit. It has neither shape nor form nor personality. It is not an entity nor a person nor a personage. It has no agency, does not act independently ...” (A New Witness for the Articles of Faith p257 - emphasis mine)

So, a "spirit" can NOW be not an entity or person. Make up your mind, 7... :no:


The Holy Spirit makes use of the Light of Christ to perform his work. McConkie went on to explain, “The Spirit of Christ, (or Light of Christ) is the agency through which the Holy Ghost operates,”

Yet more made up crap to cover gaping holes in Mormon polytheism.


So, does the Holy Spirit literally have to be everywhere in order to be “in” us?

Yes.


Consider the language that Jesus uses in references to being “in” the disciples in John chapter 17:

“And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them (to the disciples); 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”

Correct. Through the presence of the Holy Spirit, Jesus is said to be "in us", since both are the One God. But, His omnipresence does not mean that God is our master. The Holy Spirit is said to indwell us when we make Him the master of our inner selves.


Now, is the person of Jesus Christ literally living within each disciple?

He does not say that He is "living in them". He is "in them" meaning He was their head, their Rabbi, and that His name was upon them and that they were His disciples. It was a Hebrew idiom. This is not the same thing as being "indwelled" by Him.


Not only is it clear that this should not be taken in the way that you think should be inferred with the personage of the Holy Spirit, but it is also clear the “oneness” of the members of Deity should not be taken literally either.

What is clear from this verse is that strict monotheism from a "modalistic oneness" perspective is false. It does not in any way dismiss the fact that there is only one God.


Access to truth, and this Light is available to any person at any time. It is an indwelling because it literally is omnipresent, and the Holy Spirit accesses this indwelling in order to minister and personalize it for the individual, and it is in that sense that the Spirit of God can dwell within us.

Please cite ANYWHERE where the Holy Spirit is said to be "indwelled" Himself.


It is the same way that Jesus can be “with us” and “in us” even though he is a spirit which is embodied in a tabernacle of flesh and bone. We can have companionship with Christ even though He is not literally with us, or not literally in us. (This is why Christ is not a "liar" when he said those things.)

:ahem: He is in us because He and the Holy Spirit are One God.


There are many places in the scriptures where the term “Holy Spirit” does not refer to the personage, but instead the gifts of the Holy Spirit, his power, influence, or ministry. These include verses like John 20:22

22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them and *said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit."

This literally refers to the giving of the Holy Spirit, which was not given as an "indwelling" before the Resurrection.


; Acts 7:55-56

Acts 7:55 But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God;

This refers literally to the Holy Spirit indwelling Stephen to the fullest. And remember what "indwelling" means.


Acts 8:14-19

Acts 8
14 Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John,
15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit.
16 For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
17 Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit.
18 Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was bestowed through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money,
19 saying, “Give this authority to me as well, so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”

Again, this literally refers to the Holy Spirit indwelling the Samarians.


; Acts 10:44-48



Acts 10
44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message.
45 All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.

Again, this literally refers to the Holy Spirit indwelling the Gentiles.


; Acts 19: 1-6


Acts 19:1-6
1 It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples.
2 He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.”
3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.”
4 Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.”
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying.


Again, this literally refers to the Holy Spirit indwelling the Ephesians.


(See McConkie Doctrinal New Testament Commentary 2:78)

ALL of these verses are literally talking about the physical presence of the Holy Spirit himself, and the full indwelling of Him in believers through their submission to Him.



7UP: Brigham Young gave a more extensive answer:

"The great architect, manager and superintendent, controller and dictator who guides this work is out of sight to our natural eyes. He lives on another world; he is in another state of existence; ... God is considered to be everywhere present at the same moment; and the Psalmist says, “Whither shall I flee from thy presence?” [Psalm 139:7]. He is present with all his creations through his influence, through his government, spirit and power, but he himself is a personage of tabernacle, and we are made after his likeness (DBY, 22- 24).

BY was a loonie tune who claimed that the "great architect" was Adam, and that Adam was the only god in whom we have to deal.

Bill the Cat
06-23-2014, 09:31 AM
7UP: Allow me to open this post with an excerpt from one of the more well known Christian creeds, the Westminster Confession of Faith, which states:

"God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible,..."



You have yet to cite evidence that mainstream Christianity views or defines these terms in the same way that Cherbonnier does.

All I need to show is that he defined them AS USED BY MYSTICS to mean something different from what we believe. This in turn shows that you Mormons are misusing his arguments for your own benefit.


In fact, LDS are frequently criticized for believing, for example, that we can "see God". Anti-Mormons argue to me that God is literally "invisible".

Do you ever ask them to explain what they mean by that? Or do you just assume that they mean He is incapable of making Himself seen?


7UP: (Cherbonnier) He specifically describes LDS ideas, and quotes LDS leaders. He does so in an entirely positive light, and explains why many of the LDS viewpoints are valid according to the scriptural text. That is obvious to anybody who simply reads the entire article.



He calls the LDS doctrines Biblical. You are correct that he does not come out and say that the Bible is true. However, he says, on multiple occasions, that the LDS view is what is described in the Bible.

Yet, he obviously is not fleshing out the LDS view beyond the bare surface of his need in refuting the mystics. And therefore, he is not calling the entire LDS doctrine "biblical", just the part he is using to bolster his refutation of rogue "scholars" and mystics. And the few areas where he says that the LDS belief is biblical, traditional Christians agree. It is when those areas are expanded we will not see Cherbonnier wading into them. So, for instance, when Cherbonnier mentions God is anthropomorphic, and that Mormons agree, we look at what he means by that and we traditional Christians agree as well. But when we go beyond the definition Cherbonnier assigned to the word into the Father being an exalted human, Cherbonnier is completely silent. When Cherbonnier mentions the Mormon belief of God having a body, he states this is a consistent doctrine ONLY on the ground that mystics wrongly believe that matter is evil. He never agrees that the Father actually has an exalted human body.



7up wrote: He never criticized (the LDS view), he defended it, and he even argues that it is consistent with the Bible.

The portion he is using IS consistent with the Bible. I don't think any of us would disagree with Cherbonnier that matter is not inherently evil.


You and I both know that Deity can be BOTH Divine AND human (a person of flesh and bone).

And that matter is not evil in and of itself. To which Cherbonnier is arguing for.


That is an essential premise of Christianity. The only difference is that LDS apply that concept to God the Father as well as to God the Son, because Jesus Christ is the "express image of the Father's person" (Heb 1).

And that does not mean a physical copy.


You are correct that Cherbonnier does not come out and agree with LDS on this specific point, but he certainly defends the theological framework which would allow for that possibility....
- -- - - - -- - -
"Mormons do not hesitate to speak of God as having a body. Nor is this any cause for embarrassment, because for them, as for the Bible, matter is not evil but good. A disembodied spirit is a thing to be pitied, as it is in the Bible. Hence the assertion of Joseph Smith, "All beings who have bodies have power over those who have not." - Cherbonnier
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --

Correct. It defends a framework where matter is not evil. It does not attempt to delve any deeper than that. Honestly, there isn't a lot of indication that Cherbonnier even understood much of Mormon doctrine to begin with, as he was mainly interested in the philosophy of religion and not with the indepth theology of specific religions.



Again, he defends that the concept is, “as it is in the Bible.” The only thing that he doesn't come out and say is whether or not he actually agrees with the Bible. This is a scholarly work, so that would be inappropriate.

The concept that he claims is in the Bible is that matter is not evil. That's all. He is not defending that the Father has a body, only that the Bible is clear that matter is not evil, and that disembodied spirits are not better off.


I only point it out so that we can both be very clear, and as you say “Christians agree”, that the LDS concept of God the Father having a body cannot be rejected based on this premise.

No one here is dismissing the LDS concept by claiming matter is evil. So, there is no reason to point out something that isn't even a consideration.



That alone is reason enough to quote Cherbonnier's arguments from an LDS perspective, .... but there is more.

It's a strawman argument and an improper appeal to authority. Just as I have been saying all along, it's a misuse of Cherbonnier's argument as a refutation of the claim that God does not have an exalted human body. Cherbonnier is not interested in anything other than a consistent connection between matter not being evil and Mormon claims of God having a body. Congratulations. You've defended an unchallenged point.


I make no assumption. We can look at it as a broad and general concept. I certainly mean it in the broad and general sense. It is true if it refers to a pre-incarnate spirit. It is true if it refers to a post-incarnate spirit (like, for example, the spirit of Jesus before his resurrection on the third day). It is true for any personage of spirit period.

It is an assumption that it can be applied in a broader context that Cherbonnier never intended. Would it be applicable to a pre-incarnate spirit if Cherbonnier did not believe in the existence of pre-incarnate spirits? That question changes the entire answer to "Why are they to be pitied"? If they are to be pitied from your view, it is because they lost something that they obtained of value and went backwards in their progression, or they never got it in the first place. If they are to be pitied from mine, it is because they lost part of what they were created to be. There would be no pre-incarnate spirits to pity for the reason they hadn't yet received their bodies. So, pity would only be for spirits in that they no longer had their bodies, and had to await resurrection to be whole again. Applying it past the context of Cherbonnier's argument and making it into a universal claim potentially changes the "why?".



It props up the philosophical case against the mystic view of a disembodied God.

No it doesn't. The Mystics do not believe in a "disembodied" God. They believe in a diffused god that is spread out in small diluted pieces throughout the universe. Cherbonnier never refutes the Christian idea of God as an omnipresent spirit with a localized presence able to manifest in space and time to interact with it.


He doesn't have to.

Of course he doesn't. Because he is not arguing for or against those more intricate parts of the doctrines.


As long as the philosophical framework is both consistent with the Bible, and consistent with itself, the points made by Cherbonnier are valid.

But expanding those points beyond their worth is improper, and that's exactly what you Mormons are doing.


Therefore, Cherbonnier's arguments have not been misused by Latter-Day Saints when we point out that non-LDS have also made the realization that the framework for this philosophical viewpoint is right there in the Bible, and it is philosophically consistent.

Sorry, but that is not how LDS use Cherbonnier's work. Bickmore uses Cherbonnier's "anthropomorphic" statement to mean that God has "a body in human form" (contrary to how Cherbonnier defined the word). His work has been bandied about dozens of forums in defense of God having a human body. I'd love to see you cite someone who mentions him solely for the purpose of defending against an argument that matter is evil.





On 2, you added the term “human” in there, when Cherbonnier made no such qualification.

When he is only talking about humans and God, it is completely consistent with his argument. Do you see any indication that he claims animals or plants have spirits?


In fact, just above you yourself admitted that this was a general statement.

"the Biblical view that disembodied human spirits are incomplete" is what he was talking about.


Nice try, but I would have thought that you knew me well enough to realize that you cannot get those slick moves past me.

It wasn't an attempt to get anything past you. Methinks thou dost protest too much.




LDS do not quote Cherbonnier by saying that he agreed that God is an exalted man.

Bickmore does.




LDS do not quote Cherbonnier by saying that he agreed that spirits pre-existed creation.

You tried to extend his claim beyond his focus.

seven7up
07-01-2014, 07:06 PM
7up: In a basic LDS gospel principles class, you will often get an analogy similar to this, often in reference to the Holy Spirit:
"The Sun itself may be very far away, but its light, heat, and influence can be felt by many here on Earth."
So Bill, if a satellite or radio transmitter can communicate and influence many things from long distances, why do you think that God, as LDS view Him, would be limited in that sense? Jesus said he would be "with" the disciples. Is that a "lie" if Jesus is not literally standing besides them. This is a foolish game you are attempting to play Bill.


From a Trinitarian perspective, He is with us through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It is not foolish. It is basic Trinitarian doctrine. Yet ANOTHER thing you can't get through your skull.

Is it proper "basic Trinitarian doctrine" to say that the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ are the same person? Or are you just playing a modalist from time to time?

7up: Let's go into some more detail, shall we? The Holy Spirit certainly CAN dwell inside of us. The baptism of Jesus is a perfect example of this.


According to you though, the Holy Spirit was nowhere else except inside Jesus.

A person within the Godhead (whether it be the Father, Son OR Holy Spirit) has an actual local presence and personal being. However, each one of these Divine Persons has power and influence over the immensity of space. For example, that is why Jesus, in that sense, can be "with" the disciples while still remaining at the right hand of the Father in Heaven.

7up: God the Father is in heaven. (A local place and not omnipresent.)


He is in heaven, meaning that is the localized manifestation of His glory.

Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'" (John 20:17)

So, from your point of view, Jesus is really saying, "Do not hold on to me, because even though God is literally everywhere, I have not ascended to the localized manifestation of His glory."

That makes no sense, and you know it.

7up: Jesus Christ is in the water being baptized (A local place and not omnipresent.)


Which would mean that God no longer had any wisdom in heaven, since Jesus is God's Wisdom.

7up: The Holy Spirit descends in bodily form like a dove (A local place and not omnipresent.)


Which means that it is no anywhere else in heaven or earth.

7up: The Holy Spirit dwelled within Christ at that time. Indeed, if the resurrected Christ (even with a physical body) can move outside space and time as we understand it, then we should not conclude that the Holy Spirit is restricted as well. Also, when the “calling and election is made sure” for a disciple, there can be an indwelling.


A localized presence can not dwell in more than one place. So, something can not dwell in more than one "house" at a time.

Unless the laws of time and space as we understand them do not apply, you are correct.

Romans 8:9-11
But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. 10 And if Christ is in you, …

7up; For starters, when Paul says that they are no longer in the flesh, does that mean that they literally do not have a physical body?


Of course not. It means that the flesh is not the one ruling them. It is the spirit that lives within them that leads them.

Good. For starters, we need to be clear that saying a person is "in the Spirit" should not be understood as lacking a physical body.

7up: Are you calling Paul a liar? (Again, I am just using the same tactic you attempted to use in your opening statement above. Don't you see how silly it is?)


No. I am allowing the context of the verse to give it meaning.

Good. If only Evangelicals would apply that kind of standard (paying attention to context) to John 4:24.

7up: Is it the Holy Spirit? Or the “Spirit of Christ”?


There is no difference between the two. The "Spirit of Christ" is the Holy Spirit.

7up: Are you a modalist Bill?


Are you a Strangite?

Nope. You dodged the point. Proper Trinitarian doctrine maintains a subject / object distinction between the members of the Godhead. You are not being consistent.

7up; Those scriptures you cited are scriptures that modalists use to attempt support their position.


So what? They, just like you, ignore other scriptures that refute their abuse of one verse.

You are abusing the scriptures when you attempt to say that the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of Christ are the same thing.

7up: Our scriptures explain as follows, the Light of Christ, “proceeds forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space.” (see D&C 88)

7up: Elder Joseph Fielding Smith explained that, “the Holy Ghost should not be confused with the Spirit [sometimes called the Light of Christ] which fills the immensity of space and which is everywhere present... it proceeds forth from the presence of the Father and the Son and is in all things. We should speak of the Holy Ghost as a personage as 'he' and this other Spirit as 'it', ...” (Doctrines of Salvation 1:49-50)


More made up crap from J.F. Smith to try to cover up yet another giant hole in Mormon polytheism.

J.F. Smith was describing Doctrine and Covenants 88:11-13 was provided in 1832 through the original Joseph Smith. So, you cannot claim that J F Smith "made it up".

7up; Bruce R McConkie also explained, “There is a spirit – the Spirit of the Lord, the Spirit of Christ, the light of truth, the light of Christ …. It is in us and in all things; it is around us and around all things; … It is everywhere, in all immensity, without exception; it is an indwelling, immanent, ever-present, never-absent spirit. It has neither shape nor form nor personality. It is not an entity nor a person nor a personage. It has no agency, does not act independently ...” (A New Witness for the Articles of Faith p257)


So, a "spirit" can NOW be not an entity or person. Make up your mind, 7...

That is why it is described properly, or at least symbolically as "light" rather than spirit. However, the reason why it can be referred to spirit is because it is the light and power through which the Spirit of God operates, thus making it an extension of the spirit of an individual person. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit work this same way. (It is possible that our spirit works the same way, when we pray, for example.) Therefore, each member of the Godhead has a true personal presence, yet each also has power and influence over the immensity of space. This is far more consistent than the view that you have attempted to put forward.

7up: McConkie went on to explain, “The Spirit of Christ, (or Light of Christ) is the agency through which the Holy Ghost operates,”


Yet more made up crap to cover gaping holes in Mormon polytheism.

7up: So, does the Holy Spirit literally have to be everywhere in order to be “in” us?


Yes.

You are being inconsistent with Trinitarian doctrine and/or other scriptures which do not apply these terms the same way you are. Another example would be: "do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you" (2 Corinthians 13:5). That text is not saying that Jesus Christ is literally and personally inside that individual.


7up: Consider the language that Jesus uses in references to being “in” the disciples in John chapter 17:

“And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them (to the disciples); 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”


Correct. Through the presence of the Holy Spirit, Jesus is said to be "in us", since both are the One God.

Again you are attempting to play a Modalist, but only when you think you can weasel in some kind of argument. But it is inconsistent. Saying that scriptures would refer to the Holy Spirit when it actually means Jesus is a heretical position to take for a Trinitarian.


The Holy Spirit is said to indwell us when we make Him the master of our inner selves.

It is said to "indwell" us, but you are taking a leap to a conclusion and an interpretation of scripture that is absolutely illogical. An omnipresent substance would "dwell" EVERYWHERE! And your doctrine is demonstrated to be nonsense by noting that contradiction alone.

7up: Now, is the person of Jesus Christ literally living within each disciple?


He does not say that He is "living in them". He is "in them" meaning He was their head, their Rabbi, and that His name was upon them and that they were His disciples. It was a Hebrew idiom. This is not the same thing as being "indwelled" by Him.

It certainly is not the same as you would like to imply by the concept of "dwell". By YOUR interpretation, our spirits would have to be literally omnipresent as well:

"Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, ..." (1 John 4:13)

Furthermore, if the FULNESS of Deity dwells within Jesus Christ, a resurrected being, then the "fulness of Deity" cannot be considered literally omnipresent.

"For it pleased the Father that in him (Christ) should all fulness dwell" (Col 1:19)

"For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, (Col 2:9)

7up; Not only is it clear that this should not be taken in the way that you think should be inferred with the personage of the Holy Spirit, but it is also clear the “oneness” of the members of Deity should not be taken literally either.


What is clear from this verse is that strict monotheism from a "modalistic oneness" perspective is false. It does not in any way dismiss the fact that there is only one God.

The question becomes, IN WHAT SENSE is God "one".

Jesus Christ explains in John chapter 17.

7up: Access to truth, and this Light is available to any person at any time. It is an indwelling because it literally is omnipresent, and the Holy Spirit accesses this indwelling in order to minister and personalize it for the individual, and it is in that sense that the Spirit of God can dwell within us.


Please cite ANYWHERE where the Holy Spirit is said to be "indwelled" Himself.

In order for that to make any sense, I would have to hold to the false definitions that you are describing. I reject your false interpretation entirely.

7up; It is the same way that Jesus can be “with us” and “in us” even though he is a spirit which is embodied in a tabernacle of flesh and bone. We can have companionship with Christ even though He is not literally with us, or not literally in us. (This is why Christ is not a "liar" when he said those things.)


He is in us because He and the Holy Spirit are One God.

Says Bill as he swings back into Modalism.

7up; There are many places in the scriptures where the term “Holy Spirit” does not refer to the personage, but instead the gifts of the Holy Spirit, his power, influence, or ministry. These include verses like John 20:22

"And when He had said this, He breathed on them and *said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit." (John 20:22)


This literally refers to the giving of the Holy Spirit, which was not given as an "indwelling" before the Resurrection.

So, for starters, we can say that gifts of the Holy Spirit were available to many people at the same time, even when there was not an "indwelling". Right?

Acts 7:55 But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God;


This refers literally to the Holy Spirit indwelling Stephen to the fullest. And remember what "indwelling" means.

Sorry Bill, your definition of an omnipresent being (literally everywhere), who also literally dwells inside of just certain people is a contradictory concept. It is either literally omnipresent or it is not.

Acts 8:14-19
14 Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John,
15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit.
16 For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
17 Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit.
18 Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was bestowed through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money,
19 saying, “Give this authority to me as well, so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”


Again, this literally refers to the Holy Spirit indwelling the Samarians.

Not only does this passage demonstrate priesthood authority by the laying on of hands in order to perform the ordinance for the gift of the Holy Spirit, but it again demonstrates that the Holy Spirit himself should not be considered literally omnipresent.

7UP: Brigham Young gave a more extensive answer:

"The great architect, manager and superintendent, controller and dictator who guides this work is out of sight to our natural eyes. He lives on another world; he is in another state of existence; ... God is considered to be everywhere present at the same moment; and the Psalmist says, “Whither shall I flee from thy presence?” [Psalm 139:7]. He is present with all his creations through his influence, through his government, spirit and power, but he himself is a personage of tabernacle, and we are made after his likeness (DBY, 22- 24).

-7up

Bill the Cat
07-02-2014, 06:57 AM
7up: In a basic LDS gospel principles class, you will often get an analogy similar to this, often in reference to the Holy Spirit:
"The Sun itself may be very far away, but its light, heat, and influence can be felt by many here on Earth."
So Bill, if a satellite or radio transmitter can communicate and influence many things from long distances, why do you think that God, as LDS view Him, would be limited in that sense? Jesus said he would be "with" the disciples. Is that a "lie" if Jesus is not literally standing besides them. This is a foolish game you are attempting to play Bill.



Is it proper "basic Trinitarian doctrine" to say that the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ are the same person?

No. And I dare you to show where I claimed any such thing. Or is flinging more crap against the wall to see what sticks your new tactic?


Or are you just playing a modalist from time to time?

Not even close.


7up: Let's go into some more detail, shall we? The Holy Spirit certainly CAN dwell inside of us. The baptism of Jesus is a perfect example of this.



A person within the Godhead (whether it be the Father, Son OR Holy Spirit) has an actual local presence and personal being. However, each one of these Divine Persons has power and influence over the immensity of space. For example, that is why Jesus, in that sense, can be "with" the disciples while still remaining at the right hand of the Father in Heaven.

Jesus never told them that He would only be with them as an influence. He made it perfectly clear HOW He would be there with them - The Comforter would indwell them.



7up: God the Father is in heaven. (A local place and not omnipresent.)



Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'" (John 20:17)

So, from your point of view, Jesus is really saying, "Do not hold on to me, because even though God is literally everywhere, I have not ascended to the localized manifestation of His glory."

Yes. Since that was the final messianic mission - to be presented the the Ancient of Days (The Father) at the throne of God which was in heaven.


That makes no sense, and you know it.

It makes perfect sense, and you can't stand it. You are so stuck in making your gods in your own image, just like Joseph Smith was, that you can't even consider that God's essential nature is not one of us.


7up: Jesus Christ is in the water being baptized (A local place and not omnipresent.)



7up: The Holy Spirit descends in bodily form like a dove (A local place and not omnipresent.)



7up: The Holy Spirit dwelled within Christ at that time. Indeed, if the resurrected Christ (even with a physical body) can move outside space and time as we understand it, then we should not conclude that the Holy Spirit is restricted as well. Also, when the “calling and election is made sure” for a disciple, there can be an indwelling.



Unless the laws of time and space as we understand them do not apply, you are correct.

Ah, so your Jesus is a mutant teleporter now, huh?


Romans 8:9-11
But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. 10 And if Christ is in you, …

7up; For starters, when Paul says that they are no longer in the flesh, does that mean that they literally do not have a physical body?



Good. For starters, we need to be clear that saying a person is "in the Spirit" should not be understood as lacking a physical body.

Never insinuated otherwise.


7up: Are you calling Paul a liar? (Again, I am just using the same tactic you attempted to use in your opening statement above. Don't you see how silly it is?)



Good. If only Evangelicals would apply that kind of standard (paying attention to context) to John 4:24.

I see no problem with the standard Christian response to this verse, which predates Evangelicalism by many centuries.


7up: Is it the Holy Spirit? Or the “Spirit of Christ”?



7up: Are you a modalist Bill?



Nope.

Good. Then stop asking stupid questions that you already know the answer to. You aren't Karnak, so stop trying to be a mind reader.


You dodged the point.

No I didn't. I asked an equally absurd question.


Proper Trinitarian doctrine maintains a subject / object distinction between the members of the Godhead. You are not being consistent.

Yes I am. The Spirit of Christ is the Holy Spirit. It's a possessive, not a descriptuive. Similar to the "Bride of Christ" not being Christ Himself. And it is the Spirit of Christ because it is functionally subordinate to both Father and Son.


7up; Those scriptures you cited are scriptures that modalists use to attempt support their position.



You are abusing the scriptures when you attempt to say that the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of Christ are the same thing.

No I am not. The Holy Spirit is called different names, just like the Son is. He is called Comforter, Counselor, Advocate, the Seal of God, Guide, Intercessor, Spirit of God, Spirit of the Lord, Spirit of Christ, Holy Spirit, Spirit of Promise, and Witness.


7up: Our scriptures explain as follows, the Light of Christ, “proceeds forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space.” (see D&C 88)

7up: Elder Joseph Fielding Smith explained that, “the Holy Ghost should not be confused with the Spirit [sometimes called the Light of Christ] which fills the immensity of space and which is everywhere present... it proceeds forth from the presence of the Father and the Son and is in all things. We should speak of the Holy Ghost as a personage as 'he' and this other Spirit as 'it', ...” (Doctrines of Salvation 1:49-50)



J.F. Smith was describing Doctrine and Covenants 88:11-13 was provided in 1832 through the original Joseph Smith. So, you cannot claim that J F Smith "made it up".

Ok. Joseph Smith made it up and his great nephew followed in his error. Happy?



That is why it is described properly, or at least symbolically as "light" rather than spirit. However, the reason why it can be referred to spirit is because it is the light and power through which the Spirit of God operates, thus making it an extension of the spirit of an individual person. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit work this same way. (It is possible that our spirit works the same way, when we pray, for example.) Therefore, each member of the Godhead has a true personal presence, yet each also has power and influence over the immensity of space. This is far more consistent than the view that you have attempted to put forward.

It's a kabuki dance that would make Izumo no Okuni proud. The Holy Spirit can be in more than one place PHYSICALLY at the same time.

Acts 2:3 And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them.
Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.




7up: McConkie went on to explain, “The Spirit of Christ, (or Light of Christ) is the agency through which the Holy Ghost operates,”



7up: So, does the Holy Spirit literally have to be everywhere in order to be “in” us?



You are being inconsistent with Trinitarian doctrine and/or other scriptures which do not apply these terms the same way you are.


Another example would be: "do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you" (2 Corinthians 13:5). That text is not saying that Jesus Christ is literally and personally inside that individual.


Rubbish. Thomas Aquinas explained it just as I have:

525. - Then when he says, Do you not realize that Jesus Christ is in you? he shows what they can find through such an examination. First, what they might find in themselves; secondly, what they might find in the Apostle (v. 6).
526. – In themselves they will be able to discover two things by this examination, because they will either know that they are keeping the faith, and thus they will be able to find and know that Christ is in them; and this is what he says: Do you not realize that Jesus Christ is in you? i.e., if you were to examine yourselves, would you know that you have the faith and recognize that Christ is in you? As if to say: Yes, because where faith in Christ is, there Christ is: “That Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith” (Eph. 3:17); “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God?” (1 Cor. 6:19).

~ http://dhspriory.org/thomas/SS2Cor.htm#132

Thomas equates "Christ in us" with our being the "temple of the Holy Spirit" where God's presence dwells and physically manifested.



7up: Consider the language that Jesus uses in references to being “in” the disciples in John chapter 17:

“And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them (to the disciples); 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”



Again you are attempting to play a Modalist, but only when you think you can weasel in some kind of argument.

Sorry, but that poo isn't sticking any more here than above.


But it is inconsistent. Saying that scriptures would refer to the Holy Spirit when it actually means Jesus is a heretical position to take for a Trinitarian.

No it is not. Let me ask you this... when God told Ezekiel "I will put my spirit within you", which spirit was He referring to?



It is said to "indwell" us, but you are taking a leap to a conclusion and an interpretation of scripture that is absolutely illogical. An omnipresent substance would "dwell" EVERYWHERE! And your doctrine is demonstrated to be nonsense by noting that contradiction alone.

:rofl: "indwelling" means far more than just a physical presence. It also implies being welcome by the one indwelled so as to be made master of the house. Presence is a natural phenomenon while indwelling is a supernatural one. I've already explained that a few posts ago, but as India noted, you do not appear to be even trying to understand what anyone else is saying.


7up: Now, is the person of Jesus Christ literally living within each disciple?



It certainly is not the same as you would like to imply by the concept of "dwell". By YOUR interpretation, our spirits would have to be literally omnipresent as well:

"Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, ..." (1 John 4:13)

More stupidity on your part. It means we reside in Him and His Lordship while He resides within us by the Holy Spirit (which is the rather inconvenient part of that verse that you left out.)


Furthermore, if the FULNESS of Deity dwells within Jesus Christ, a resurrected being, then the "fulness of Deity" cannot be considered literally omnipresent.


"For it pleased the Father that in him (Christ) should all fulness dwell" (Col 1:19)

"For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, (Col 2:9)

:duh: If deity is omnipresent, then absolutely it can fully dwell within Christ and still be elsewhere.

1 Kings 8:27 "But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain You, how much less this house which I have built!

Psa 139:7 Where can I go from Your Spirit?
Or where can I flee from Your presence?
Psa 139:8 If I ascend to heaven, You are there;
If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, You are there.

Jeremiah 23:23-24 "Am I a God who is near," declares the LORD, "And not a God far off? "Can a man hide himself in hiding places So I do not see him?" declares the LORD. "Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?" declares the LORD.



7up; Not only is it clear that this should not be taken in the way that you think should be inferred with the personage of the Holy Spirit, but it is also clear the “oneness” of the members of Deity should not be taken literally either.



The question becomes, IN WHAT SENSE is God "one".

In that there is only one God (Isaiah 44:6). There was no higher god (Hebrews 6:13) who made God into God, nor did God make another into God (Isaiah 43:10).


Jesus Christ explains in John chapter 17.

And it does not support monism or polytheism. It supports trinitarianism.


7up: Access to truth, and this Light is available to any person at any time. It is an indwelling because it literally is omnipresent, and the Holy Spirit accesses this indwelling in order to minister and personalize it for the individual, and it is in that sense that the Spirit of God can dwell within us.



In order for that to make any sense, I would have to hold to the false definitions that you are describing. I reject your false interpretation entirely.

Your attempt at dodgeball failed. Perhaps a few more lessons would help before you try that tactic again...

960

You claimed "the Holy Spirit accesses this "indwelling". I'm asking you to prove from scripture where the Holy Spirit is "indwelled".




7up; It is the same way that Jesus can be “with us” and “in us” even though he is a spirit which is embodied in a tabernacle of flesh and bone. We can have companionship with Christ even though He is not literally with us, or not literally in us. (This is why Christ is not a "liar" when he said those things.)



Says Bill as he swings back into Modalism.

961


7up; There are many places in the scriptures where the term “Holy Spirit” does not refer to the personage, but instead the gifts of the Holy Spirit, his power, influence, or ministry. These include verses like John 20:22

"And when He had said this, He breathed on them and *said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit." (John 20:22)



So, for starters, we can say that gifts of the Holy Spirit were available to many people at the same time, even when there was not an "indwelling". Right?

No. God's power could be used by those God chose as He saw fit.


Acts 7:55 But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God;



Sorry Bill, your definition of an omnipresent being (literally everywhere), who also literally dwells inside of just certain people is a contradictory concept. It is either literally omnipresent or it is not.

Presence is a natural phenomenon and indwelling is a supernatural one. God can be somewhere without supernaturally affecting it.


Acts 8:14-19
14 Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John,
15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit.
16 For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
17 Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit.
18 Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was bestowed through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money,
19 saying, “Give this authority to me as well, so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”



Not only does this passage demonstrate priesthood authority by the laying on of hands in order to perform the ordinance for the gift of the Holy Spirit,

I never said otherwise. But your "priesthood" is illegitimate.


but it again demonstrates that the Holy Spirit himself should not be considered literally omnipresent.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY

seven7up
07-02-2014, 08:55 PM
7up: You have yet to cite evidence that mainstream Christianity views or defines these terms in the same way that Cherbonnier does.


All I need to show is that he defined them AS USED BY MYSTICS....

In his article, "In Defense of Anthropomorphism", Cherbonnier does not mention "mystics" once. He does, however, mention Catholics and Protestants. Then later in the article says, "In short, theology as traditionally practiced is a prescription for schizophrenia." Clearly, he is criticizing "traditional theology". He then explains how too often, that which is said about God, like existing in time and space, is interpreted to being "symbolic" instead of literally.


7up: In fact, LDS are frequently criticized for believing, for example, that we can "see God". Anti-Mormons argue to me that God is literally "invisible".


Do you ever ask them to explain what they mean by that? Or do you just assume that they mean He is incapable of making Himself seen?

Similar to what you describe, they say that when God makes himself "seen" and it is called "God" in the text, it isn't really God at all, but just some kind of temporary puppet manifestation which isn't really God at all, and it just "evaporates" back into nothing. And when God is described in the form of a man in the Bible, it really isn't God at all and it cannot be taken literally, because in your view (or the typical Protestant/Catholic view) God has no true image or likeness to be seen at all.

In other words, the LDS view is that God has a form, but God does not usually allow it to be seen. The Protestant and Catholic view is that God has no form at all, and is therefore "invisible" unless it makes some thing appear out of nothing as a representation of God rather than God himself. Cherbonnier:

"Such a God is invisible in principle ... The biblical God, on the contrary, is invisible simply as a matter of tactics. De facto, men seldom do see Him. Upon occasion, however, he does show himself... Perhaps one reason why God chooses to remain invisible for the time being is that He cannot yet trust men not to stare at him.... In the meantime, we may well think twice before assuming that just because He has not shown himself to us, He is invisible "by nature."

So Bill, IF God is literally everywhere, then how could anybody "stare at Him"?


7UP: (Cherbonnier) He specifically describes LDS ideas, and quotes LDS leaders. He does so in an entirely positive light, and explains why many of the LDS viewpoints are valid according to the scriptural text. That is obvious to anybody who simply reads the entire article. He calls the LDS doctrines Biblical. You are correct that he does not come out and say that the Bible is true. However, he says, on multiple occasions, that the LDS view is what is described in the Bible.


Yet, he obviously is not fleshing out the LDS view beyond the bare surface of his need in refuting the mystics. And therefore, he is not calling the entire LDS doctrine "biblical", just the part he is using to bolster his refutation of rogue "scholars" and mystics.

Read that second article again, the article where he specifically addresses Mormon beliefs. The word "mystic" isn't used in that article at all. Not even once. Instead he brings Catholics and Protestants into the picture. Then he essentially argues that "traditional theologians" unjustly criticize LDS.


And the few areas where he says that the LDS belief is biblical, traditional Christians agree.

Except for those things on which you have admitted to disagreeing with on this forum and in this thread. Along with LDS, Cherbonnier argues for a God who lives in space and time, while you argue for a God outside space and time. (While LDS may admit that God can exist outside space and time as we know it, you place God outside space and time altogether.) Cherbonnier discusses how existing outside space and time altogether, or in a "timeless eternity" is not the Biblical God.


It is when those areas are expanded we will not see Cherbonnier wading into them. So, for instance, when Cherbonnier mentions God is anthropomorphic, and that Mormons agree, we look at what he means by that and we traditional Christians agree as well.

Do you? So far, it appears that LDS agree with EVERYTHING that Cherbonnier had to say. Yet traditional Christians, like yourself, do have some disagreements.


But when we go beyond the definition Cherbonnier assigned to the word into the Father being an exalted human, Cherbonnier is completely silent.

LDS never said that Cherbonnier believes that God the Father is an exalted human. He doesn't address that concept and it does not come into the discussion specifically. He only makes vague implications of a bodily form, like the idea that God does not want people to "stare at Him".


When Cherbonnier mentions the Mormon belief of God having a body, he states this is a consistent doctrine ONLY on the ground that mystics wrongly believe that matter is evil.

Not only that, but on the Biblical grounds that anything without a physical body "is to be pitied".

7up: You and I both know that Deity can be BOTH Divine AND human (a person of flesh and bone).


And that matter is not evil in and of itself. To which Cherbonnier is arguing for.

He went beyond that. See above. Furthermore, in the first article Cherbonnier says that , "To insist that He (God) is omnipresent would be to imprison Him."

7up: (The idea that God can exist as a human being) is an essential premise of Christianity. The only difference is that LDS apply that concept to God the Father as well as to God the Son, because Jesus Christ is the "express image of the Father's person" (Heb 1).


And that does not mean a physical copy.

You don't have any Biblical grounds to make that assertion. The actual word implies a physical copy. Indeed, Jesus is an exact representation of God the Father in every sense.

7up: You are correct that Cherbonnier does not come out and agree with LDS on this specific point, but he certainly defends the theological framework which would allow for that possibility....
- -- - - - -- - -
"Mormons do not hesitate to speak of God as having a body. Nor is this any cause for embarrassment, because for them, as for the Bible, matter is not evil but good. A disembodied spirit is a thing to be pitied, as it is in the Bible. Hence the assertion of Joseph Smith, "All beings who have bodies have power over those who have not." - Cherbonnier
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
7up: Correct. It defends a framework where matter is not evil. It does not attempt to delve any deeper than that. Honestly, there isn't a lot of indication that Cherbonnier even understood much of Mormon doctrine to begin with, as he was mainly interested in the philosophy of religion and not with the indepth theology of specific religions.

You are making assumptions about what Cherbonnier did or did not know. We are discussing what he said and the implications of what he said. Here is the definition of "disembodied" - "lacking a body or freed from the body; incorporeal ; lacking substance or solidity"

7up: I only point it out so that we can both be very clear, and as you say “Christians agree”, that the LDS concept of God the Father having a body cannot be rejected based on this premise.


No one here is dismissing the LDS concept by claiming matter is evil. So, there is no reason to point out something that isn't even a consideration.

Again, you are arguing against a point that I am not making. Cherbonnier went beyond the concept of whether or not matter is evil. He says that to insist that God is omnipresent would be to "imprison Him". He argues, essentially, that the preferred existence is a bodily and corporeal existence within space and time.

7up: That alone is reason enough to quote Cherbonnier's arguments from an LDS perspective, .... but there is more.


It's a strawman argument and an improper appeal to authority. Just as I have been saying all along, it's a misuse of Cherbonnier's argument as a refutation of the claim that God does not have an exalted human body. Cherbonnier is not interested in anything other than a consistent connection between matter not being evil and Mormon claims of God having a body. Congratulations. You've defended an unchallenged point.

I agree that the "matter as evil" is an unchallenged point. I don't know why you brought it up, as if it was part of the discussion. You simply attempted to misdirect, by arguing a point that I wasn't making in the first place.

7up: I make no assumption. We can look at it as a broad and general concept. I certainly mean it in the broad and general sense. It is true if it refers to a pre-incarnate spirit. It is true if it refers to a post-incarnate spirit (like, for example, the spirit of Jesus before his resurrection on the third day). It is true for any personage of spirit period.


It is an assumption that it can be applied in a broader context that Cherbonnier never intended. Would it be applicable to a pre-incarnate spirit if Cherbonnier did not believe in the existence of pre-incarnate spirits? That question changes the entire answer to "Why are they to be pitied"? If they are to be pitied from your view, it is because they lost something that they obtained of value and went backwards in their progression, or they never got it in the first place. If they are to be pitied from mine, it is because they lost part of what they were created to be. There would be no pre-incarnate spirits to pity for the reason they hadn't yet received their bodies. So, pity would only be for spirits in that they no longer had their bodies, and had to await resurrection to be whole again. Applying it past the context of Cherbonnier's argument and making it into a universal claim potentially changes the "why?".

Wrong. The "spirits" being referred to, in YOUR theology, weren't created to have bodies in the first place, and thus were not created to have a resurrection. It is YOUR theology that is inconsistent, because being "spirit only" is what they were created to be, and thus should not be pitied if they don't have a body.

In LDS theology, they are to be pitied, because it is is BETTER to be both "spirit AND body", rather than "only spirit". Furthermore, to think otherwise and think that Deity is better off without a body, would be to say that God condemned Jesus to have to exist in a body as if it would put limits on the Son of God. And "traditional Christian" critics of the LDS faith, speak of "God in a body" as if it would make the Person of God "finite".

7up:It props up the philosophical case against the mystic view of a disembodied God.


No it doesn't. The Mystics do not believe in a "disembodied" God. They believe in a diffused god that is spread out in small diluted pieces throughout the universe. Cherbonnier never refutes the Christian idea of God as an omnipresent spirit with a localized presence able to manifest in space and time to interact with it.

Cherbonnier already went well beyond that. He argues that our existence is similar to the existence of God and not "entirely other" as Christians often claim. "Traditional theologians" often speak of God as a being completely different in kind from us, not only in space and time, but also in a "metaphysical sense", and Cherbonnier argues against that.

7up: As long as the philosophical framework is both consistent with the Bible, and consistent with itself, the points made by Cherbonnier are valid.


But expanding those points beyond their worth is improper, and that's exactly what you Mormons are doing.

It is proper. If God is "spacio-temporal" and people can "stare at Him" and Cherbonnier criticizes "scholars and theologians" for taking appearances of God too figuratively and symbolically. Those are ideas that LDS have been arguing all along, with the point that we are beings made in the "image and likeness" of God. We argue that having a spirit, without a body, is to be pitied, which Cherbonnier cites as a Biblical concept.

The specific idea that God is an exalted human being is not brought into it when discussing Cherbonnier, so you cannot make that criticism, or say that LDS misuse him.

In fact, the other Christians who I have discussed this with eventually just write off Cherbonnier as being wrong, or call him a "Liberal New Testament Scholar". It was a little refreshing and entertaining to watch you attempt and try to twist Cherbonnier your way.

-7up

seven7up
07-02-2014, 11:12 PM
Show me ONE THING that Jesus taught, that he had to walk back and say, "OK, guys -- sorry* -- I was wrong about that, so let me set it straight".

No. He simply did not tell them everything all at once. The text is very clear that they remained to have many misconceptions.


Comparing your Prophet of Trickery and Deceit to Jesus is, again, just beyond goofy.

On the contrary, I am NOT comparing Joseph Smith to Jesus. I am comparing Joseph Smith to prophets and apostles, who were flawed, sinful and even sometimes very confused and uninformed.


Why can't you see that's what you're doing, Seven? Your guy was SUPPOSEDLY a PROPHET who heard DIRECTLY from God.

And what did Joseph hear directly from God?


Either your "prophet" HEARD from God, or he was making it up as he went along.

Remember when Jesus told people, including the apostles, that the Temple would be torn down, and then built up in 3 days?

What did they THINK Jesus meant? Were they correct? ...

Or did they have to see something and have it explained to them in more detail before they understood it?

-7up

Cow Poke
07-07-2014, 08:13 PM
Remember when Jesus told people, including the apostles, that the Temple would be torn down, and then built up in 3 days?

What did they THINK Jesus meant? Were they correct? ...

Or did they have to see something and have it explained to them in more detail before they understood it?

-7up

Jesus NEVER told them something that He subsequently had to say, "well, no, it's NOT that, it's THIS instead....". :shrug:

Cow Poke
07-07-2014, 08:17 PM
And what did Joseph hear directly from God?

Nada.

Bill the Cat
07-09-2014, 10:08 AM
7up: You have yet to cite evidence that mainstream Christianity views or defines these terms in the same way that Cherbonnier does.



In his article, "In Defense of Anthropomorphism", Cherbonnier does not mention "mystics" once. He does, however, mention Catholics and Protestants.

And he differentiates between the "thinkers", or "elite" as he calls them later, and the laymen. In fact, you've misconstrued his entire article. The very FIRST line from him, after Madsen's hilarious "commentary" says:


When Christian thinkers have tried to judge themselves and their religion by the rules of rational argument, they have generally found the God of popular piety to be a source of embarrassment.

So, you see that the entire article's premise is set up here. That there is a difference between the god of the "Christian thinkers", and then there is the God of "popular piety". Cherbonnier then goes on to explain what each of these "gods" are. In doing so, he explains:


A God who can communicate with mankind, and play a part in human events, is no doubt adapted to the mental level of children and of the uneducated, but is hardly taken seriously by the sophisticated

He explains that the God of "popular piety" is one that communicates with mankind and plays a part in human events, which I wholeheartedly agree. He then goes on to trash the novel ideas of Catholic and Protestant "thinkers" who deny those facts.


Then later in the article says, "In short, theology as traditionally practiced is a prescription for schizophrenia."

He is referring to the particular theology of the "thinkers", not the theology of "popular piety". As I already cited from this article, the ones he associates with these "thinkers" show who he is arguing against - liberal thinkers who are not part of the orthodox theology of "popular piety".


Clearly, he is criticizing "traditional theology".

No he isn't. One only needs to look at who he is criticizing to see that your opinion here is false.


He then explains how too often, that which is said about God, like existing in time and space, is interpreted to being "symbolic" instead of literally.

He also explains what he is arguing against - an impersonal thing. He is not claiming the Mormon belief that God has an exalted body is true. He is saying that Mormons have held that God is personal, and that until the "scholarship" of the past 200 years, so did everyone else.



7up: In fact, LDS are frequently criticized for believing, for example, that we can "see God". Anti-Mormons argue to me that God is literally "invisible".



Similar to what you describe, they say that when God makes himself "seen" and it is called "God" in the text, it isn't really God at all, but just some kind of temporary puppet manifestation which isn't really God at all, and it just "evaporates" back into nothing.

Sorry, but that's not what I said at all. The temporary theophanies ARE God, not puppets.


And when God is described in the form of a man in the Bible, it really isn't God at all and it cannot be taken literally, because in your view (or the typical Protestant/Catholic view) God has no true image or likeness to be seen at all.

That's just plain stupid. If God had no form to be seen, then His words to Moses would make no sense. As I said, God is invisible to us because He wills it so. He is visible to the angels and to those in heaven, therefore saying "God has no true image or likeness to be seen at all" is a straw man of what Catholics and Protestants believe. I cite Irenaeus for proof:


But to allege that those things which are super-celestial and spiritual, and, as far as we are concerned, invisible and ineffable, are in their turn the types of celestial things and of another Pleroma, and [to say] that God is the image of another Father, is to play the part both of wanderers from the truth, and of absolutely foolish and stupid persons..

It is the orthodox belief that God is invisible to us because He wills it so. It is NOT orthodox to believe that He is invisible forever to everyone.


In other words, the LDS view is that God has a form, but God does not usually allow it to be seen.

And the orthodox Christian view is that God has a unique omnipresent form that He does not ever allow us to see on earth. And Jesus said the same thing. NO MAN has seen God.




The Protestant and Catholic view is that God has no form at all, and is therefore "invisible" unless it makes some thing appear out of nothing as a representation of God rather than God himself.

False. When something manifests as a theophany of God, it is said to be God, not a "representation".


Cherbonnier:

"Such a God is invisible in principle ... The biblical God, on the contrary, is invisible simply as a matter of tactics. De facto, men seldom do see Him. Upon occasion, however, he does show himself... Perhaps one reason why God chooses to remain invisible for the time being is that He cannot yet trust men not to stare at him.... In the meantime, we may well think twice before assuming that just because He has not shown himself to us, He is invisible "by nature."

So Bill, IF God is literally everywhere, then how could anybody "stare at Him"?

The same way Moses could stare at the burning bush while God was still omnipresent. The same way the Holy Spirit could manifest as flames over everyone in the Upper Room while still being omnipresent. You aren't even TRYING to get it, are you?



7UP: (Cherbonnier) He specifically describes LDS ideas, and quotes LDS leaders. He does so in an entirely positive light, and explains why many of the LDS viewpoints are valid according to the scriptural text. That is obvious to anybody who simply reads the entire article. He calls the LDS doctrines Biblical. You are correct that he does not come out and say that the Bible is true. However, he says, on multiple occasions, that the LDS view is what is described in the Bible.



Read that second article again, the article where he specifically addresses Mormon beliefs.

I have read it numerous times. And every time I read it, I come to the same conclusion - that you Mormons are misusing what he is saying.


The word "mystic" isn't used in that article at all. Not even once.

In that article, no. That one is about false ideas of philosophers who try to "de-personalize' God.


Instead he brings Catholics and Protestants into the picture. Then he essentially argues that "traditional theologians" unjustly criticize LDS.

On specific grounds that are not biblically based. He is not refuting orthodox belief and theology. He is refuting unorthodox philosophy that had creeped into the religious academic instuitutions and the theological discussions of philosophers and scholars.



Except for those things on which you have admitted to disagreeing with on this forum and in this thread. Along with LDS, Cherbonnier argues for a God who lives in space and time, while you argue for a God outside space and time. (While LDS may admit that God can exist outside space and time as we know it, you place God outside space and time altogether.)

No I don't. The mere fact that He interacts with us refutes your strawman claim. Cherbonnier claims that God is independent from the created world, just like we both do.


Cherbonnier discusses how existing outside space and time altogether, or in a "timeless eternity" is not the Biblical God.

Which means to Cherbonnier that God interacts with creation, which an impersonal "timeless" force does not.




Do you? So far, it appears that LDS agree with EVERYTHING that Cherbonnier had to say. Yet traditional Christians, like yourself, do have some disagreements.

Again, when we look at what Cherbonnier is actually saying, and not what you wish he was saying, then yes, we do agree.



LDS never said that Cherbonnier believes that God the Father is an exalted human. He doesn't address that concept and it does not come into the discussion specifically. He only makes vague implications of a bodily form, like the idea that God does not want people to "stare at Him".

That didn't stop Bickmore or Jeff Lindsay from using Cherbonnier in the middle of a claim about the Father being an exalted human.




Not only that, but on the Biblical grounds that anything without a physical body "is to be pitied".

Which you take way too far too. Is the Holy Spirit, who is a God even in your own religion, without a physical body and to be pitied in the manner that Cherbonnier is discussing? Or perhaps Cherbonnier actually is referring to spirits of those who have died and are awaiting their resurrection...


7up: You and I both know that Deity can be BOTH Divine AND human (a person of flesh and bone).



He went beyond that. See above. Furthermore, in the first article Cherbonnier says that , "To insist that He (God) is omnipresent would be to imprison Him."

In this context:


Neither is the biblical God immanent, in the sense that He is diffused throughout the universe. To insist that He is omnipresent would be to imprison Him. The biblical God can be wherever He wants to be.

We've already discussed what Cherbonnier meant by "omnipresent" in this context. And like the other subjects, you are taking it well beyond what he means.




7up: (The idea that God can exist as a human being) is an essential premise of Christianity. The only difference is that LDS apply that concept to God the Father as well as to God the Son, because Jesus Christ is the "express image of the Father's person" (Heb 1).



You don't have any Biblical grounds to make that assertion.

Yes I do. An imprint was not a replica of the thing it was imprinting. The main example was the signet ring. The impression made on the wax was not in the shape of a ring, it was a physical impression of the face of the ring. Jesus is the physical impression of the Father's personal attributes, not His physical form. That's the point of that verse.


The actual word implies a physical copy.

No it doesn't.


Indeed, Jesus is an exact representation of God the Father in every sense.

That's not what the verse says.


7up: You are correct that Cherbonnier does not come out and agree with LDS on this specific point, but he certainly defends the theological framework which would allow for that possibility....
- -- - - - -- - -
"Mormons do not hesitate to speak of God as having a body. Nor is this any cause for embarrassment, because for them, as for the Bible, matter is not evil but good. A disembodied spirit is a thing to be pitied, as it is in the Bible. Hence the assertion of Joseph Smith, "All beings who have bodies have power over those who have not." - Cherbonnier
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
7up: Correct. It defends a framework where matter is not evil. It does not attempt to delve any deeper than that. Honestly, there isn't a lot of indication that Cherbonnier even understood much of Mormon doctrine to begin with, as he was mainly interested in the philosophy of religion and not with the indepth theology of specific religions.

You are making assumptions about what Cherbonnier did or did not know. We are discussing what he said and the implications of what he said. Here is the definition of "disembodied" - "lacking a body or freed from the body; incorporeal ; lacking substance or solidity"

7up: I only point it out so that we can both be very clear, and as you say “Christians agree”, that the LDS concept of God the Father having a body cannot be rejected based on this premise.



Again, you are arguing against a point that I am not making.

That's the point that Cherbonnier was making. It's you who is trying to leverage that argument beyond its intent.


Cherbonnier went beyond the concept of whether or not matter is evil. He says that to insist that God is omnipresent would be to "imprison Him". He argues, essentially, that the preferred existence is a bodily and corporeal existence within space and time.

But not a human body. Nor does Cherbonnier state what SORT of body and existence God has, other than to say it was personal, which was my initial objection to your using his article to begin with.


7up: That alone is reason enough to quote Cherbonnier's arguments from an LDS perspective, .... but there is more.



I agree that the "matter as evil" is an unchallenged point. I don't know why you brought it up, as if it was part of the discussion. You simply attempted to misdirect, by arguing a point that I wasn't making in the first place.

Because it shows the context of Cherbonnier's argument, and shows how you are making a fallacious equivocation between what he is saying and what you want him to say.


7up: I make no assumption. We can look at it as a broad and general concept. I certainly mean it in the broad and general sense. It is true if it refers to a pre-incarnate spirit. It is true if it refers to a post-incarnate spirit (like, for example, the spirit of Jesus before his resurrection on the third day). It is true for any personage of spirit period.



Wrong. The "spirits" being referred to, in YOUR theology, weren't created to have bodies in the first place, and thus were not created to have a resurrection.

You are wrong. Nowhere does Cherbonnier claim that our spirits pre-exist our conception. He claims that a spirit without a body is to be pitied (as is Christian theology, since a disembodied human spirit is awaiting resurrection). The context of the biblical claim does not support a claim of pre-existent spirits, angelic spirits, or demonic spirits being the subject of his argument.


It is YOUR theology that is inconsistent, because being "spirit only" is what they were created to be, and thus should not be pitied if they don't have a body.

But, again, this assumes that Cherbonnier is talking about non-post-mortem human or other spirits, which he isn't. For to take that to the logical conclusion, the Holy Spirit is to be pitied too. I seriously doubt that Cherbonnier would go that far...


In LDS theology, they are to be pitied, because it is is BETTER to be both "spirit AND body", rather than "only spirit".

And in Christian theology, they are to be pitied because they are no longer whole, as God created them originally.


Furthermore, to think otherwise and think that Deity is better off without a body, would be to say that God condemned Jesus to have to exist in a body as if it would put limits on the Son of God.

Not even close. Assuming a human body neither made Jesus more or less God. It was not a condemnation or a limit for the Son to assume human flesh as an additional nature.


And "traditional Christian" critics of the LDS faith, speak of "God in a body" as if it would make the Person of God "finite".

Only if you ignore the context of the accusation.


7up:It props up the philosophical case against the mystic view of a disembodied God.



Cherbonnier already went well beyond that.

No he didn't. His entire argument was against a disembodied non-personal thing.


He argues that our existence is similar to the existence of God and not "entirely other" as Christians often claim.

Only in the manner of a personal existence. I seriously doubt Cherbonnier would support a God who was reliant on another god above him to cause him to exist. To Cherbonnier, God is the pinacle of personal existence, and our existence is similar t oHis in that we are personal beings, capable of emotion and response.


"Traditional theologians" often speak of God as a being completely different in kind from us, not only in space and time, but also in a "metaphysical sense", and Cherbonnier argues against that.

No he didn't. He argued against an impersonal force that was diffused throughout the universe with no ability to interact with it.


7up: As long as the philosophical framework is both consistent with the Bible, and consistent with itself, the points made by Cherbonnier are valid.



It is proper. If God is "spacio-temporal" and people can "stare at Him" and Cherbonnier criticizes "scholars and theologians" for taking appearances of God too figuratively and symbolically. Those are ideas that LDS have been arguing all along, with the point that we are beings made in the "image and likeness" of God. We argue that having a spirit, without a body, is to be pitied, which Cherbonnier cites as a Biblical concept.

And you take those well past this into the Father being reliant on a higher god for his exaltation, him obtaining his godhood through celestial progression, and him possessing an old human man's body with gray hair to boot. God is spatio-temporal in that He interacts with reality. God has shown Himself through theophanies, then through the Son, and finally we will behold Him in heaven in the New Creation.


The specific idea that God is an exalted human being is not brought into it when discussing Cherbonnier, so you cannot make that criticism, or say that LDS misuse him.

Cherbonnier's anthropomorphism is used as a segue to the exalted human doctrine, and it is a direct result of ignoring Cherbonnier's definition of the term in favor of the Mormon one. He is misused.


In fact, the other Christians who I have discussed this with eventually just write off Cherbonnier as being wrong, or call him a "Liberal New Testament Scholar". It was a little refreshing and entertaining to watch you attempt and try to twist Cherbonnier your way.

:rofl: I let him, his other articles, and their contexts speak for themselves. You took what he said, ignored both definitions and context, and ran with the fallacy. I've been thoroughly entertained at watching you make repeated false claims about what Christians believe and what Cherbonnier was saying. Not that I'm surprised though...

seven7up
08-10-2014, 01:51 AM
I have to respond in two parts, because I got the error message: "The text that you have entered is too long (27636 characters). Please shorten it to 24000 characters long."

7up: In his article, "In Defense of Anthropomorphism", Cherbonnier does not mention "mystics" once. He does, however, mention Catholics and Protestants.


And he differentiates between the "thinkers", or "elite" as he calls them later, and the laymen. ...


When Christian thinkers have tried to judge themselves and their religion by the rules of rational argument, they have generally found the God of popular piety to be a source of embarrassment.

And I suppose that you are going to argue that these "Christian thinkers" have no effect on Christian theology? Of course they do. Evidence of this is everywhere in Christianity.


So, you see that the entire article's premise is set up here. That there is a difference between the god of the "Christian thinkers", and then there is the God of "popular piety". Cherbonnier then goes on to explain what each of these "gods" are. In doing so, he explains:


A God who can communicate with mankind, and play a part in human events, is no doubt adapted to the mental level of children and of the uneducated, but is hardly taken seriously by the sophisticated

Why would I take issue with the God of "laymen" or "popular piety"? If I ask a layperson what "Ex Nihilo" is or how they understand God's omnipresence, they likely wouldn't have a clear answer. There is no disagreement with those who don't have an opinion in the first place. Here is what Cherbonnier said right after that:

"Hence the tendency, in both Roman Catholic and Protestant theology, to distinguish between those beliefs which are suitable for mass consumption and those which are intelligible only to an elite. And hence also the tendency to look with condescension upon those branches of Christianity, often referred to as fringe groups, which refuse to make such a distinction and which make no apology for conceiving God as personal; that is, as a being who can make known his purposes for the world and carry them out in human history. No denomination holds more staunchly to this conception of God as Person than do the Mormons. "


He explains that the God of "popular piety" is one that communicates with mankind and plays a part in human events, which I wholeheartedly agree. He then goes on to trash the novel ideas of Catholic and Protestant "thinkers" who deny those facts.

The article goes well beyond the idea of a personal God who is involved in history. He goes on to trash YOUR view that God exists outside space and time and he uses LDS scripture as an example of how the Mormon view of God living within time and space is the only concept that makes sense IF God does indeed act in history as a personal Being:

"Nearly any passage chosen at random from the Book of Mormon illustrates the point; for example, Mormon 8:22: “For the eternal purposes of the Lord shall roll on, until all his promises shall be fulfilled.” Quite consistently with this view, Mormons also conceive God as temporal, not eternal in the sense of timeless. The idea of a timeless eternity is incompatible with an acting God, for it would be static, lifeless, impotent. If God is an agent, then he must be temporal, for timeless action is a contradiction in terms. Hence the Mormon theologian, Orson Pratt, can say, “The true God exists both in time and in space, and has as much relation to them as man or any other being.”

The portion in bold above is Cherbonnier's argument, in which he cites agreement with Mormons and opposes your view.


He is referring to the particular theology of the "thinkers", not the theology of "popular piety". As I already cited from this article, the ones he associates with these "thinkers" show who he is arguing against - liberal thinkers who are not part of the orthodox theology of "popular piety".

He is talking about aspects of YOUR theology as well, which has been influenced by those Christian thinkers. Your theology is also influenced by other philosophies which are not compatible with scripture. For example those on this thread are repulsed by the idea of God having a physical body. Do you know where that repulsion comes from? It comes from Gnosticism:

“To worship ... embodied creatures is thus tantamount to worshipping alienated and corrupt portions of the emanated divine essence.” GNOSIS.ORG


No he isn't. One only needs to look at who he is criticizing to see that your opinion here is false.

For starters, he is criticizing anyone who believes in God existing in a "timeless eternity". That would be you.


He also explains what he is arguing against - an impersonal thing.

You, I, Mormons, and Christians AND Cherbonnier all agree that God is personal. Why do you keep bringing up a non-issue?

However, He disagrees with YOU when you claim that God is some kind of timeless and literally omnipresent essence.

7up: In fact, LDS are frequently criticized for believing, for example, that we can "see God". Anti-Mormons argue to me that God is literally "invisible". Similar to what you describe, they say that when God makes himself "seen" and it is called "God" in the text, it isn't really God at all, but just some kind of temporary puppet manifestation which isn't really God at all, and it just "evaporates" back into nothing.


Sorry, but that's not what I said at all. The temporary theophanies ARE God, not puppets.

So, you believe that God can "disappear from existence"? Here is an earlier statement from you, which again shows how Cherbonnier's theology agrees with that of Mormons, but differs from yours:


Cherbonnier differs from my view in that he claims the theophanies of the OT were God actually showing Himself, and my belief, like Augustine's were that they were temporary "created instruments of God’s presence" that ceased to exist after their disappearance. For instance, the pillar of fire, Solomon's Shekinah glory, the burning bush, Ezekiel's wheels, Daniel's finger, all were temporary creations by God in order for His presence to be visibly manifested. Once He was done with them, they disappeared from existence.

Of course, you were attempting to pull a fast one here, because none of the examples you gave above were actual theophanies where it was claimed that God was actually seen. When the Lord spoke to Moses through the burning bush, for example, that was not a true theophany, because Deity did not actually appear to Moses. However, when Moses "spoke to the Lord face to face as a man speaks unto his friend", then THAT is a true theophany. When the Elders of Israel "saw the God of Israel", then THAT was a true theophany. The pillar of fire and the cloud were OBSCURING the view of the Lord so that all of Israel would not be looking directly upon God. That privilege was reserved for only a few.

7up: (Bill asserts that) when God is described in the form of a man in the Bible, it really isn't God at all and it cannot be taken literally, because in your view (or the typical Protestant/Catholic view) God has no true image or likeness to be seen at all.


That's just plain stupid. If God had no form to be seen, then His words to Moses would make no sense. As I said, God is invisible to us because He wills it so. He is visible to the angels and to those in heaven, therefore saying "God has no true image or likeness to be seen at all" is a straw man of what Catholics and Protestants believe.

You called these manifestations "temporary creations". See above.


It is the orthodox belief that God is invisible to us because He wills it so. It is NOT orthodox to believe that He is invisible forever to everyone.

What is the form of God then Bill? What does He look like?


And the orthodox Christian view is that God has a unique omnipresent form that He does not ever allow us to see on earth. And Jesus said the same thing. NO MAN has seen God.

"Then Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there..." (Exodus 24:10)

Plus, your quote from Jesus is ignoring the whole of scripture and what it has to say about men seeing God. As I have demonstrated many, many times, God can speak face to face with men, but not while in all His glory; otherwise, sinful man would die in his presence. (see also 1 Corinthians 1:29).


False. When something manifests as a theophany of God, it is said to be God, not a "representation".

Even here you have to say that "it is said to be God". So, is it just "said to be God", or is it really God? Is it just a "manifestation that disappears from existence" like you claimed earlier?


The same way Moses could stare at the burning bush while God was still omnipresent. The same way the Holy Spirit could manifest as flames over everyone in the Upper Room while still being omnipresent. You aren't even TRYING to get it, are you?

Again, the burning bush was not a true theophany. When Jesus was baptized, there was a voice from Heaven (a single location) who was the Father speaking. The Father was not seen. The Son was in the water with John the Baptist. The Holy Spirit descended from Heaven. None of them were a "unique omnipresent form" as you claim. When speaking of the Person of God, there is always a location, "in Heaven". He is not literally omnipresent.

Again, if God the Father is literally everywhere, it makes no sense for Jesus to say, "Hold me not, for I have not yet ascended to my Father." Jesus had to go to a place in order to be with the Father. Your theology is not Biblical, it is not consistent, and it is not logical.

7up: The word "mystic" isn't used in that article at all. Not even once.


In that article, no. That one is about false ideas of philosophers who try to "de-personalize' God.

That article goes well beyond that and you know it. After Cherbonnier disagrees with your "timeless eternity" God, he take the logic of a God who lives within time and space and explains as follows:

Carrying this logic one step further, Mormons do not hesitate to speak of God as having a body. Nor is this any cause for embarrassment, because for them, as for the Bible, matter is not evil but good. A disembodied spirit is a thing to be pitied, as it is in the Bible. Hence the assertion of Joseph Smith, “All beings who have bodies have power over those who have not.”

What are the reasons why this conception of God has not been taken seriously by intellectuals, Christian or otherwise? Their reasons for opposing it are understandable and even admirable. They want to preserve the integrity of human reason against the credulity and superstition which often accompany religion. They want to show the thinking man that Christianity does not insult his intelligence. To that end, many theologians are unhappy with what they often refer to as “crude anthropomorphism,” and some even go out of their way to repudiate it altogether. They perceive it as a relic of a primitive mentality, wishful thinking, childish fantasy, or the projection of the father image upon the heavens.


On specific grounds that are not biblically based. He is not refuting orthodox belief and theology. He is refuting unorthodox philosophy that had creeped into the religious academic instuitutions and the theological discussions of philosophers and scholars.

He is DEFENDING the LDS view of scripture and the LITERAL meaning of the original text. When the Elders of Israel saw God, they actually saw God and described what they saw under God's feet. (Yes, God has feet.) When Moses spoke to God face to face "as a man speaks unto his friend", it means what it says. When you speak to your friend face to face, that was the kind of experience that Moses had with God, speaking to another Person face to face.

"When the Bible says that the walls of Jericho fell, it means it. Whether in fact they did fall is a separate issue. But it does not help matters to search the text for some other, hidden meaning. ... What then do the biblical authors mean when they speak of God? Are they speaking literally or not? Thanks to two centuries of scholarship, this is no longer a matter of guesswork, nor is it a question which anyone is free to answer as he pleases—anyone, that is, who respects the results of critical investigation. For biblical scholarship is unanimous in confirming what the Mormons have always held: that the God of the Bible is a personal Agent with a proper name. This conception might or might not be valid; that is a separate issue. But from Genesis to Revelation, the Bible conceives of God in the same terms that are peculiar to human beings, such as speaking, caring, planning, judging, and taking action."


No I don't. The mere fact that He interacts with us refutes your strawman claim. Cherbonnier claims that God is independent from the created world, just like we both do.

I never asserted that you believe in a God who does not interact with us. So quit bringing it up as if I did.

Just because God is independent from the created world, does not mean that his state prior to the creation of this Universe was a state outside of time and space entirely. Cherbonnier also argues that our existence is similar to the existence of God and not "entirely other" as Christians often claim. "Traditional theologians" often speak of God as a being completely different in kind from us, not only in space and time, but also in a "metaphysical sense", and Cherbonnier argues against that.


Which means to Cherbonnier that God interacts with creation, which an impersonal "timeless" force does not.

The typical "Christian" view is that God is personal, but exists "outside of time." Cherbonnier explained why he disagrees with this as a contradiction of terms. (See above.) In fact, it would be impossible for the Father and Son to have a relationship with one another in an existence without time. Before the creation of the Universe as we know it, there still had to be time and space in order for the Father and Son to relate to each other.


Again, when we look at what Cherbonnier is actually saying, and not what you wish he was saying, then yes, we do agree.

Do you?

-7up

seven7up
08-10-2014, 01:52 AM
That didn't stop Bickmore or Jeff Lindsay from using Cherbonnier in the middle of a claim about the Father being an exalted human.

If you take the Bible LITERALLY, as Cherbonnier says we should, then God has hands, feet, face, etc. This is found outside the poetic texts of the Bible, and in the straightforward passages of people who saw God and described that experience.

Furthermore, Cherbonnier provided the Biblical example of how those without a body should be pitied. Hence, the logic of the Father having an exalted body is perfectly warranted.


Which you take way too far too. Is the Holy Spirit, who is a God even in your own religion, without a physical body and to be pitied in the manner that Cherbonnier is discussing?

If the Holy Spirit were to NEVER have a body, then it would be pitied. However, LDS theology is consistent. “The Holy Ghost is yet a spiritual body and is waiting to take to himself a body, as the Savior did.”[Joseph Smith, Encyclopedia of Joseph Smith's Teachings]


Or perhaps Cherbonnier actually is referring to spirits of those who have died and are awaiting their resurrection...

The Biblical context were the "demons" who possessed a man. The Lord cast those spirits out of the man, and then as an act of mercy allowed them to enter a different kind of body, (the swine).

In YOUR theology Bill, those demons were angels who were never designed to have a body in the first place. In LDS theology, it makes sense, because it IS preferable for ANY spirit to have a body.

-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Neither is the biblical God immanent, in the sense that He is diffused throughout the universe. To insist that He is omnipresent would be to imprison Him.

7up: You and I both know that Deity can be BOTH Divine AND human (a person of flesh and bone). .... Furthermore, in the first article Cherbonnier says that , "To insist that He (God) is omnipresent would be to imprison Him."


We've already discussed what Cherbonnier meant by "omnipresent" in this context. And like the other subjects, you are taking it well beyond what he means.

You have done nothing but contradict yourself when it comes to YOUR definition of omnipresent, and then you try to hoist your own confused doctrine onto Cherbonnier.

You claim that God is literally omnipresent, but in a "unique form". Tell me Bill, what is the "form" of an omnipresence. You and I both know that this is a contradiction. You claim that you believe that God exists outside time and space, yet also within time and space, yet you contradict yourself again when you say that God is not diffused throughout time and space in the Universe.

You have to claim all of these contradictory concepts, because you know that Cherbonnier disagrees with the concept of a God who is literally spread over the entire Universe as an omnipresent spirit which is everywhere at once.

7up: (The idea that God can exist as a human being) is an essential premise of Christianity. The only difference is that LDS apply that concept to God the Father as well as to God the Son, because Jesus Christ is the "express image of the Father's person" (Heb 1).



And that does not mean a physical copy.

It includes EVERYTHING. Everything about the nature and existence of Jesus is also true of the Father. Jesus Christ is the "fulness of Deity bodily." Your theology cannot agree with that statement, because your theology requires literal omnipresence, which cannot be contained "bodily."

7up: You don't have any Biblical grounds to make that assertion. The actual word implies a physical copy. Indeed, Jesus is an exact representation of God the Father in every sense.


Yes I do. An imprint was not a replica of the thing it was imprinting.

The shape and form is reproduced into the same shape and form.


Jesus is the physical impression of the Father's personal attributes, not His physical form. That's the point of that verse.

Again, you have no Biblical grounds to claim that. You are directly contradicting Cherbonnier's argument that the text should be read literally. You are reading in your own interpretation because of your bias and you are removing the wording which is clearly, and by your own admission, speaking of a physical imprint.

There is no such thing as "physical impressions" of personality. You made that up.

7up: Indeed, Jesus is an exact representation of God the Father in every sense.


That's not what the verse says.

It does. Jesus Christ is an exact representation of God the Father's person. Who and what Deity is and the nature of God is perfectly reflected in the Resurrected person of Jesus Christ. That is what the verse says. YOU are the one who tries to remove the exalted body of the Lord.

7UP: Cherbonnier went beyond the concept of whether or not matter is evil. He says that to insist that God is omnipresent would be to "imprison Him". He argues, essentially, that the preferred existence is a bodily and corporeal existence within space and time.


But not a human body.

What kind of body did Jesus, who has the "fulness of Deity", have?


Nor does Cherbonnier state what SORT of body and existence God has, other than to say it was personal, which was my initial objection to your using his article to begin with.

Cherbonnier says that God's existence is NOT different in a metaphysical sense than ours. He defends the LDS view of beings without a body as those to be pitied as "Biblical." Your initial objection was a poor one.

7up: I agree that the "matter as evil" is an unchallenged point. I don't know why you brought it up, as if it was part of the discussion. You simply attempted to misdirect, by arguing a point that I wasn't making in the first place.


Because it shows the context of Cherbonnier's argument, and shows how you are making a fallacious equivocation between what he is saying and what you want him to say.

It is quite clear who is trying to twist Cherbonnier Mr. Bill. As I said, you would have been better off to do as other Christians did and try to discredit Cherbonnier altogether. Now you have put yourself in an impossible position.

7up: Wrong. The "spirits" being referred to, in YOUR theology, weren't created to have bodies in the first place, and thus were not created to have a resurrection.


You are wrong. Nowhere does Cherbonnier claim that our spirits pre-exist our conception. ...But, again, this assumes that Cherbonnier is talking about non-post-mortem human or other spirits, which he isn't.

I never said that Cherbonnier claimed that.


But, again, this assumes that Cherbonnier is talking about non-post-mortem human or other spirits, which he isn't. And in Christian theology, they are to be pitied because they are no longer whole, as God created them originally.

He is talking about spirits who never had a body of their own. (Angels/Spirits who fell from heaven.) They are to be pitied because they don't get to have a body. Perhaps you don't realize that the context of that verse does not refer to spirits of human beings. I will let you go look it up and then you can get back to me.

7up: Furthermore, to think otherwise and think that Deity is better off without a body, would be to say that God condemned Jesus to have to exist in a body as if it would put limits on the Son of God.


Not even close. Assuming a human body neither made Jesus more or less God.

Wow. Again you accuse me of an assertion that I never made. That is several in a row now. I never said that assuming a body is requisite to be considered Deity.


It was not a condemnation or a limit for the Son to assume human flesh as an additional nature.

Exactly right. So, why would anybody think that it is a condemnation or a limit for the Father to dwell in an exalted body?

7up: And "traditional Christian" critics of the LDS faith, speak of "God in a body" as if it would make the Person of God "finite".


Only if you ignore the context of the accusation.

The context of the accusation usually includes the misuse of John 4:24. Which says that God is "spirit". Of course, the same is true of each one of us, and that does not mean that we don't have a body.

"Jesus answered, That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." (John 3:3-8)

This passage clearly says that “that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” According to the misuse of the verse in the next chapter, John 4:24, that would mean that anybody who is baptized with the Holy Spirit doesn't have a body.

7up: "Traditional theologians" often speak of God as a being completely different in kind from us, not only in space and time, but also in a "metaphysical sense", and Cherbonnier argues against that.


No he didn't. His entire argument was against a disembodied non-personal thing.

Ahem. You, Bill, believe that God is different from man in a "metaphysical sense". Cherbonnier said this:

"It is therefore misleading to speak of "discontinuity" between the Creator and his creation. Opposition between men and God there surely is, but it is volitional, not metaphysical. In biblical terms, it occurred after creation. That is, a conflict of wills presupposes that both parties share a single logical context, a common world of thought and action. In this sense, the doctrine of creation is a doctrine of continuity, not discontinuity. " -Cherbonnier (http://www.philosophy-religion.org/cherbonnier/logic-bible.htm)

As you can see, Cherbonnier is saying that God and creation have the same kind of metaphysical existence. Got it?

7up: He argues that our existence is similar to the existence of God and not "entirely other" as Christians often claim.


I seriously doubt Cherbonnier would support a God who was reliant on another god above him to cause him to exist.

Off topic. Furthermore, the LDS view does not either. As you well know, we do not believe in Ex Nihilo creation. There is not a "cause him to exist" about it. Everything and everyone already exists.



And you take those well past this into the Father being reliant on a higher god for his exaltation, ...

Who exalted Jesus Christ? God the Father did. If you want to call the Father a "higher god" then go ahead. Jesus certainly implied this when he said things like, "I ascend to my Father and my God.' And "the Father is greater than I."


And you take those well past this into the ( Father ) ... obtaining his godhood through celestial progression, and him possessing an old human man's body with gray hair to boot.

I take it to mean that Jesus Christ is doing exactly what God the Father did. Do you imagine Jesus Christ to have an "old human man's body"? Is that how you view our resurrected Lord?


God is spatio-temporal in that He interacts with reality.

I agree with Cherbonnier when he says the difference between our existence and God's is volitional, not metaphysical.


God has shown Himself through theophanies, then through the Son, and finally we will behold Him in heaven in the New Creation.

And what will God look like Bill?


Cherbonnier's anthropomorphism is used as a segue to the exalted human doctrine, and it is a direct result of ignoring Cherbonnier's definition of the term in favor of the Mormon one. He is misused.

He is not misused. The arguments he makes are logically consistent with Mormonism.

God the Father living a mortal life like Jesus and having the same nature and metaphysical existence is just another step in that logical conclusion, which also happens to be consistent with scripture, who speaks of the Father having life in himself just as Jesus does (in the context of resurrection) and the Father showing the Son what the Father has done.

-7up

Bill the Cat
08-11-2014, 09:30 AM
I was in the middle of responding to your first of two posts when I realized I am merely repeating myself in almost every instance. I'm tired of you not listening to a word I say, so I'm done here. You can claim victory, or whatever you wish, but that does not change the facts I have posted in this discussion. Unsubscribing.

Cow Poke
08-11-2014, 10:52 AM
I was in the middle of responding to your first of two posts when I realized I am merely repeating myself in almost every instance. I'm tired of you not listening to a word I say, so I'm done here. You can claim victory, or whatever you wish, but that does not change the facts I have posted in this discussion. Unsubscribing.

Dear Lord, please send us nicer Mormons.

Sparko
08-11-2014, 11:04 AM
Dear Lord, please send us nicer Mormons.


Nah. this one is perfect. When other mormons or people investigating mormonism see these threads, and the goofy answers and hissy fits from 7up, it will convince them to run, not walk away from mormonism.

Sentient 6
09-28-2014, 07:04 PM
Another way to look at it is this:

I know that this is impossible, but let's pretend for a moment that God the Father (and/or the Holy Spirit) were suddenly to drop out of existence tomorow. In that scenario, Jesus Christ would STILL be fully God. (i.e. the FULNESS of Deity would still exist in Christ.)

I am not sure if most Trinitarians would hold that position.


-7up

Hi....

If this were true, then Father, Son and Spirit would be three separate gods. If one dropped out, then the next one would take over.

One thing I was curious about though......is LDS exaltation trinitarian in nature ( at least in the sense that LDS view trinitarianism ).

seven7up
10-07-2014, 01:52 AM
Hi....

If this were true, then Father, Son and Spirit would be three separate gods. If one dropped out, then the next one would take over.

One thing I was curious about though......is LDS exaltation trinitarian in nature ( at least in the sense that LDS view trinitarianism ).

I invite you to read the rest of the thread. I have gone over the details and provided many other Biblical examples.

Feel free, for example, to read John Chapter 17 to find out in what sense "God is one", in Biblical language and meaning.


-7up

Bill the Cat
10-18-2014, 05:36 PM
I invite you to read the rest of the thread. I have gone over the details and provided many other Biblical examples.

Feel free, for example, to read John Chapter 17 to find out in what sense "God is one", in Biblical language and meaning.


-7up

And then he needs to realize that "God is one" in more ways than just that.

seven7up
10-30-2014, 01:21 AM
7up wrote: I invite you to read the rest of the thread. I have gone over the details and provided many other Biblical examples. Feel free, for example, to read John Chapter 17 to find out in what sense "God is one", in Biblical language and meaning.


And then he needs to realize that "God is one" in more ways than just that.

The figurative "oneness" in the Bible is consistent and it is found all over the Biblical text and is nothing like what Trinitarians present it to be. Here are some examples:

Mark 10:8 A man will cleave unto his wife, "they twain shall be ONE flesh".

Do you believe that when a man and a woman marry ... they become the same person, one in metaphysical substance? Of course not.* There are more...

Acts 4:32 multitude ... of one heart and of one soul

Rom. 12:5 we, being many, are one body in Christ

2 Cor. 13:11 Be perfect ... of one mind

Gal. 3:28 ye are all one in Christ

Philip. 1:27 one spirit, with one mind striving together

Then, of course, there is the big one, where Christ invites the disciples to be "one" in the same sense that He is "one" with the Father,

"John 17: 22 "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one."

One of the biggest differences between your view and mine Bill, is that classical theism and Trinitarianism views God to be a "single, simple substance", which cannot be divided, which is "without parts or passions", and is literally an "omnipresent essence." With that view, God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit have to be the same metaphysical Being.

These are concepts not supported by scripture. In fact, there are many examples which directly contradict those doctrines, like when Jesus is on the cross, and he says, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me."

This represents a moment when Christ is suffering for the sins of the world, which includes a separation from God the Father. Yet, if the Father and Son are a single Being/Substance, then that is impossible.

Other examples include the New Testament teachings of Christ being subordinate to God the Father. When Jesus was in heaven he was "chosen/anointed" and "sent" by God the Father. The Father is in charge, is superior in rank, is above the Son. This is impossible for a single Being.

Christ "inherits" from God the Father and is "given authority" by God the Father. Is the same single substance "choosing" itself? "Sending" itself? "Inheriting" from itself?

When Mary was trying to hold on to the resurrected Lord in John 20:17, Jesus said to her, "Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.'"

If the Father and Jesus are the same single substance, then there could never be a separation between itself. If God the Father is literally omnipresent, then Jesus wouldn't have to "ascend" to anywhere in order to be with the Father.

At the baptism of Jesus Christ, we see 3 distinct Beings, who are in 3 different locations. God the Father in Heaven, the Holy Spirit descending, and Jesus Christ in the water.

The LDS view is perfectly consistent with all of these scriptures, and the Trinitarian creeds are not.

-7up

Bill the Cat
10-31-2014, 08:27 AM
The figurative "oneness" in the Bible is consistent and it is found all over the Biblical text

And so is the ontological oneness.


and is nothing like what Trinitarians present it to be.

It is EXACTLY like what we present it to be.


Here are some examples:

Mark 10:8 A man will cleave unto his wife, "they twain shall be ONE flesh".

Do you believe that when a man and a woman marry ... they become the same person, one in metaphysical substance? Of course not.* There are more...

Considering this isn't talking about substances at all...


Acts 4:32 multitude ... of one heart and of one soul

Rom. 12:5 we, being many, are one body in Christ

2 Cor. 13:11 Be perfect ... of one mind

Gal. 3:28 ye are all one in Christ

Philip. 1:27 one spirit, with one mind striving together

Then, of course, there is the big one, where Christ invites the disciples to be "one" in the same sense that He is "one" with the Father,

"John 17: 22 "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one."

Again, NONE of these verses are talking about ontology. And we Trins agree with every one of them


One of the biggest differences between your view and mine Bill, is that classical theism and Trinitarianism views God to be a "single, simple substance", which cannot be divided, which is "without parts or passions", and is literally an "omnipresent essence." With that view, God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit have to be the same metaphysical Being.

But they are distinct centers of consciousness within that metaphysical being.


These are concepts not supported by scripture.

I disagree. They are completely supported by scripture.


In fact, there are many examples which directly contradict those doctrines, like when Jesus is on the cross, and he says, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me."

How does directly quoting a Psalm of David's suffering dispel the fact that Jesus is God's Wisdom, and that His Wisdom is not a separate God?


This represents a moment when Christ is suffering for the sins of the world, which includes a separation from God the Father. Yet, if the Father and Son are a single Being/Substance, then that is impossible.

No it isn't. Your hyper-literalization of this verse is what is impossible. God is pretty clear in Deuteronomy 31 that He never truly forsakes us.


Other examples include the New Testament teachings of Christ being subordinate to God the Father. When Jesus was in heaven he was "chosen/anointed" and "sent" by God the Father. The Father is in charge, is superior in rank, is above the Son. This is impossible for a single Being.

No it isn't. God's Wisdom is functionally subordinate to Him while ontologically they are equal.


Christ "inherits" from God the Father and is "given authority" by God the Father. Is the same single substance "choosing" itself? "Sending" itself? "Inheriting" from itself?

Yes. Within the hypostatic centers of consciousness.


When Mary was trying to hold on to the resurrected Lord in John 20:17, Jesus said to her, "Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.'"

Yawn...



If the Father and Jesus are the same single substance, then there could never be a separation between itself.

Yes there can. Wisdom theology has been understanding that for thousands of years.


If God the Father is literally omnipresent, then Jesus wouldn't have to "ascend" to anywhere in order to be with the Father.

:duh:


At the baptism of Jesus Christ, we see 3 distinct Beings, who are in 3 different locations. God the Father in Heaven, the Holy Spirit descending, and Jesus Christ in the water.

Yet, there is only one God who knows no other, who says no other was formed before Him or after Him. So, we have one God in 3 distinct persons. Not 3 gods who became gods at different times and now act like a team.


The LDS view is perfectly consistent with all of these scriptures, and the Trinitarian creeds are not.



The Trinitarian view is perfectly consistent with those scriptures. The Mormon false doctrine can not account for ANY of the "Only God" language.

seven7up
11-14-2014, 10:19 AM
7up: The figurative "oneness" in the Bible is consistent and it is found all over the Biblical text and is nothing like what Trinitarians present it to be. Here are some examples:

Mark 10:8 A man will cleave unto his wife, "they twain shall be ONE flesh". ...
Acts 4:32 multitude ... of one heart and of one soul
Rom. 12:5 we, being many, are one body in Christ
2 Cor. 13:11 Be perfect ... of one mind
Gal. 3:28 ye are all one in Christ
Philip. 1:27 one spirit, with one mind striving together
"John 17: 22 "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one."


And so is the ontological oneness.

No it is not. You have failed to demonstrate your assertions.


It is EXACTLY like what we present it to be. ... Considering this isn't talking about substances at all... Again, NONE of these verses are talking about ontology. ...

You don't have any verses that discuss the ontology of God in the way that you present it. Your ontological view of God is absent from the Bible. Allow me to give you an ontological verse about God and man in the Bible:

"Let Us create man in OUR image and after OUR likeness. ... God created man in His own image," (Gen 1:26-27).


But they are distinct centers of consciousness within that metaphysical being.

There is no such thing as multiple "distinct centers of consciousness" within a single "metaphysical being" and you have no Biblical evidence for such a concept.

7up: These are concepts not supported by scripture.


I disagree. They are completely supported by scripture.

Yet you are unable to show this "scriptural support" in any meaningful way. You will have to take scriptures out of context in order to even attempt to make your case. And in this particular post of yours, you have not even attempted to do that.


How does directly quoting a Psalm of David's suffering dispel the fact that Jesus is God's Wisdom, and that His Wisdom is not a separate God?

As explained in scripture, a consequence of sin is a separation from God. This will occur to all those who suffer the torment of "the second death". Christ took upon Himself this consequence on our behalf. It was separation from the Father. Thus, they are distinct beings.


No it isn't. Your hyper-literalization of this verse is what is impossible. God is pretty clear in Deuteronomy 31 that He never truly forsakes us.

He will not forsake the faithful when sin is atoned for. We are discussing the actual act of the the atonement of sins.


No it isn't. God's Wisdom is functionally subordinate to Him while ontologically they are equal.

Here you shift into modalism. In a sense you are saying that Jesus is just a manifestation of a "part of God", which is God's "wisdom". That isn't true Christianity. True Christianity is that Jesus Christ, in and of Himself, is the "fulness of Deity", a fully divine Being. Jesus is not, as you appear to claim here, just a manifestation of one aspect of God, and that aspect is subordinate to the rest of God. That is heresy.

7up: Christ "inherits" from God the Father and is "given authority" by God the Father. Is the same single substance "choosing" itself? "Sending" itself? "Inheriting" from itself?


Yes. Within the hypostatic centers of consciousness.

That is Neoplatonism, which was modified from those philosophers like Plotinus in order to be adapted for Christianity. It is nonsense.

7up: When Mary was trying to hold on to the resurrected Lord in John 20:17, Jesus said to her, "Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.'"
If the Father and Jesus are the same single substance, then there could never be a separation between itself.
If God the Father is literally omnipresent, then Jesus wouldn't have to "ascend" to anywhere in order to be with the Father.


Yawn...
Yes there can. Wisdom theology has been understanding that for thousands of years. :duh:

The kind of wisdom theology that you are bringing into the discussion is based in greek philosophy. That is not the same as the wisdom theology found in the Biblical text.

7up: At the baptism of Jesus Christ, we see 3 distinct Beings, who are in 3 different locations. God the Father in Heaven, the Holy Spirit descending, and Jesus Christ in the water.


Yet, there is only one God who knows no other, who says no other was formed before Him or after Him.

You are jumping to entirely different context. I bring up the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and there relationship ... then you jump to another concept entirely, which is the God of Israel being compared to the false (and nonexistent) gods which were being "formed" by men out of gold, silver, and stone. Those are not even remotely the same discussion.


So, we have one God in 3 distinct persons.

The issue is, ...in what sense are they one? As demonstrated, your "Biblical evidence" is taken from scripture which is addressing an entirely different issue altogether. You have used the worst interpretation tactics available in order to attempt your argument.


Not 3 gods who became gods at different times and now act like a team.

Again, the idea that distinct individual beings, who are NOT the same single metaphysical substance, become "one" is precisely what Jesus addresses here:

"John 17: 22 "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one."

And to seal the deal, Christ expresses that it is the same kind of "oneness" that He shares with the Father.

My interpretation of the Biblical text is rock solid Bill. Your references to false idols in comparison to Jehovah are very, very weak.

-7up

Cow Poke
11-14-2014, 10:23 AM
[COLOR="#0000FF"]Second, I would say that LDS views are often considered similar to a version of the Trinity, one that has been called "Social Trinitarianism".

Show me any remotely orthodox view of the Trinity that has God the Father evolving from a flesh and blood sinner.

seven7up
11-14-2014, 10:27 AM
Again, Cherbonnier's article is relevant. This article is relevant, because many of the "mystic" theologies still prevail in mainstream religions of the world today, including Judaism, Islam and Christianity. This includes your views Bill.


3) In what sense is God "one"?
Another axiom of religious philosophy is the unity of God. Again, however, the definition of "unity" will change as one passes from the mystical to the biblical system of thought. In both systems, the meaning of "unity" reflects their respective definitions of "unlimited." For the mystic, God can only be unlimited if He is the sole existent being. If there were two "gods," then the second would, by its very existence, "condition" the first. No account of the one would be complete without reference to the other. Carried to its conclusion, this logic forbids not only a second "god," but the existence of anything else at all. Anything "outside" God would reduce Him to one term in a relation. God must therefore be without relation; in a word, "unconditioned," or "absolute." Consequently, when the mystic speaks of the unity of God, he means "the one without a second," or "that than which there is no other."7 For the mystic, in other words, the unity of God means monism....

It is precisely this conception of unity which the Bible opposes. When the prophet cried, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one God," he was not referring to "the one without a second." He was calling attention to God's constancy of purpose, his integrity of character. ....

The Jews were not primarily interested in the question, "How many gods are there?," but rather in the question, "To whom do I owe my allegiance?" For them, the very idea of a "pantheon" would have involved a contradiction in terms, for it makes a virtue of divided loyalty. Only in later Judaism did they finally conclude that Yahweh was the sole God. ..."

http://www.philosophy-religion.org/cherbonnier/logic-bible.htm E. La B. Cherbonnier - Harvard Theological Review (Vol. 55, 1962)

Again we see how you have misused and misinterpreted those Old Testament verses that you attempted (in vague reference) in your last post to me.

* The concept of "one God" portrayed by ancient Israelites is different than you claim.

* The reference of "other gods" being formed is in an entirely different context.

-7up

Sparko
11-14-2014, 10:38 AM
Again, Cherbonnier's article is relevant. This article is relevant, because many of the "mystic" theologies still prevail in mainstream religions of the world today, including Judaism, Islam and Christianity. This includes your views Bill.


3) In what sense is God "one"?
Another axiom of religious philosophy is the unity of God. Again, however, the definition of "unity" will change as one passes from the mystical to the biblical system of thought. In both systems, the meaning of "unity" reflects their respective definitions of "unlimited." For the mystic, God can only be unlimited if He is the sole existent being. If there were two "gods," then the second would, by its very existence, "condition" the first. No account of the one would be complete without reference to the other. Carried to its conclusion, this logic forbids not only a second "god," but the existence of anything else at all. Anything "outside" God would reduce Him to one term in a relation. God must therefore be without relation; in a word, "unconditioned," or "absolute." Consequently, when the mystic speaks of the unity of God, he means "the one without a second," or "that than which there is no other."7 For the mystic, in other words, the unity of God means monism....

It is precisely this conception of unity which the Bible opposes. When the prophet cried, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one God," he was not referring to "the one without a second." He was calling attention to God's constancy of purpose, his integrity of character. ....

The Jews were not primarily interested in the question, "How many gods are there?," but rather in the question, "To whom do I owe my allegiance?" For them, the very idea of a "pantheon" would have involved a contradiction in terms, for it makes a virtue of divided loyalty. Only in later Judaism did they finally conclude that Yahweh was the sole God. ..."

http://www.philosophy-religion.org/cherbonnier/logic-bible.htm E. La B. Cherbonnier - Harvard Theological Review (Vol. 55, 1962)

Again we see how you have misused and misinterpreted those Old Testament verses that you attempted (in vague reference) in your last post to me.

-7up


that is utter crap.

When the Hebrews said God is ONE they meant there is only ONE being. One God. That is clear in context by reading the OT without trying to look at it through the lens of the LDS church.

"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me" (Isaiah 43:10).


Isaiah 44:6 "This is what the LORD says-- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God. 7 Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay out before me what has happened since I established my ancient people, and what is yet to come-- yes, let him foretell what will come. 8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one."*


Yet in the NT, Jesus is called God. Not merely one with God, but GOD. He himself distinguishes himself from the Father and the Holy Spirit who are also God.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

John 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.

*John 20:27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." 28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"



Only God should be worshiped, yet Jesus was worshiped and accepted it:

Matthew 2:11 On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him.

Matthew 28:9 Suddenly Jesus met them. "Greetings," he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him.

Luke 24:51 While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven. 52 Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy.

John 9:37 Jesus said, "You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you." 38 Then the man said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshiped him.



So it is clear that there is only ONE God ontologically and Jesus is God, as is the Father and Holy Spirit.

Bill the Cat
11-14-2014, 11:51 AM
7up: The figurative "oneness" in the Bible is consistent and it is found all over the Biblical text and is nothing like what Trinitarians present it to be. Here are some examples:

Mark 10:8 A man will cleave unto his wife, "they twain shall be ONE flesh". ...
Acts 4:32 multitude ... of one heart and of one soul
Rom. 12:5 we, being many, are one body in Christ
2 Cor. 13:11 Be perfect ... of one mind
Gal. 3:28 ye are all one in Christ
Philip. 1:27 one spirit, with one mind striving together
"John 17: 22 "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one."



No it is not. You have failed to demonstrate your assertions.

The "No other God" language is all over the Bible. You've been schooled on it dozens of times.




You don't have any verses that discuss the ontology of God in the way that you present it. Your ontological view of God is absent from the Bible. Allow me to give you an ontological verse about God and man in the Bible:

"Let Us create man in OUR image and after OUR likeness. ... God created man in His own image," (Gen 1:26-27).

Sorry, but that is not ontology either. You want clear statements on ontological oneness?

Exodus 8:10 Then he said, “Tomorrow.” So he said, “May it be according to your word, that you may know that there is no one like the Lord our God.
Deuteronomy 4:35 To you it was shown that you might know that the Lord, He is God; there is no other besides Him.
Deuteronomy 4:39 Know therefore today, and take it to your heart, that the Lord, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other.
Deuteronomy 32:39 ‘See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me;
2 Samuel 7:22 For this reason You are great, O Lord God; for there is none like You, and there is no God besides You, according to all that we have heard with our ears.
2 Samuel 22:32 “For who is God, besides the Lord? And who is a rock, besides our God?
1 Kings 8:60 so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the Lord is God; there is no one else.
1 Chronicles 17:20 O Lord, there is none like You, nor is there any God besides You, according to all that we have heard with our ears.
Psalm 18:31 For who is God, but the Lord? And who is a rock, except our God
Isaiah 37:20 Now, O Lord our God, deliver us from his hand that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that You alone, Lord, are God.”
Isaiah 43:10 “You are My witnesses,” declares the Lord, “And My servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and believe Me And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me.
Isaiah 44:6 “Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: ‘I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me.
Isaiah 44:8 ‘Do not tremble and do not be afraid; Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it? And you are My witnesses. Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any other Rock? I know of none.’”
Isaiah 45:14 Thus says the Lord, “The products of Egypt and the merchandise of Cush And the Sabeans, men of stature, Will come over to you and will be yours; They will walk behind you, they will come over in chains And will bow down to you; They will make supplication to you: ‘Surely, God is with you, and there is none else, No other God.’”
Isaiah 45:18 For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it [a]a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited), “I am the Lord, and there is none else.
Isaiah 45:21 “Declare and set forth your case; Indeed, let them consult together. Who has announced this from of old? Who has long since declared it? Is it not I, the Lord? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me.
Isaiah 46:9 “Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me,



John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God





There is no such thing as multiple "distinct centers of consciousness" within a single "metaphysical being" and you have no Biblical evidence for such a concept.

Yes there is and yes I do. I've cited it several times. There is ONLY ONE God. That is irrefutable. The Father is God. That is irrefutable. The Son is God. That too is irrefutable. The Spirit is God. That is also irrefutable. The Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit. That is irrefutable. The Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. That is irrefutable. The Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son. That is irrefutable. Those irrefutable proofs are all I need as evidence.


7up: These are concepts not supported by scripture.



Yet you are unable to show this "scriptural support" in any meaningful way. You will have to take scriptures out of context in order to even attempt to make your case. And in this particular post of yours, you have not even attempted to do that.

2651

You are the one who follows a church that has to invent crap to make your polytheism work. You claim that God was once not God, contrary to Psalm 90:2. You claim that Jesus became a god at some point, contrary to Isaiah 43:10. You claim that "Elohim" is above Yahweh, contrary to the several verses listed above. No, 7, it's YOU who has to make up fake contexts to support the lies of Joseph Smith.





As explained in scripture, a consequence of sin is a separation from God. This will occur to all those who suffer the torment of "the second death". Christ took upon Himself this consequence on our behalf. It was separation from the Father. Thus, they are distinct beings.

False. Your low context understanding of Jesus' quote leads to a false conclusion. Jesus was NEVER separated from the Father.




He will not forsake the faithful when sin is atoned for. We are discussing the actual act of the the atonement of sins.

And the Father did not forsake the Son, nor were they at all separated.




Here you shift into modalism. In a sense you are saying that Jesus is just a manifestation of a "part of God", which is God's "wisdom".

No it isn't. You understand neither modalism or Wisdom theology. Manifestations are temporary, only appearing for a short time to do a specific job. Wisdom is an attribute of God that is personified in Jesus Christ, the Son. Wisdom is not temporary. But, I'm not at all surprised you fail even that basic of a thing.


That isn't true Christianity. True Christianity is that Jesus Christ, in and of Himself, is the "fulness of Deity", a fully divine Being.

He is THE divine being. He is God, and there is no other.


Jesus is not, as you appear to claim here, just a manifestation of one aspect of God, and that aspect is subordinate to the rest of God. That is heresy.

:no: TRY to get what I am saying...


7up: Christ "inherits" from God the Father and is "given authority" by God the Father. Is the same single substance "choosing" itself? "Sending" itself? "Inheriting" from itself?



That is Neoplatonism, which was modified from those philosophers like Plotinus in order to be adapted for Christianity. It is nonsense.

No it isn't. YOUR ilk are in with the Neo-Platonists (specifically Iamblichus and Proclus), who held ideas such as a heavenly mother, deification, a three-tired heaven, and pre-existence.



7up: When Mary was trying to hold on to the resurrected Lord in John 20:17, Jesus said to her, "Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.'"
If the Father and Jesus are the same single substance, then there could never be a separation between itself.
If God the Father is literally omnipresent, then Jesus wouldn't have to "ascend" to anywhere in order to be with the Father.



The kind of wisdom theology that you are bringing into the discussion is based in greek philosophy. That is not the same as the wisdom theology found in the Biblical text.

It is the EXACT same as found in the Bible. See The Theology of Paul the Apostle By James D. G. Dunn


7up: At the baptism of Jesus Christ, we see 3 distinct Beings, who are in 3 different locations. God the Father in Heaven, the Holy Spirit descending, and Jesus Christ in the water.



You are jumping to entirely different context. I bring up the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and there relationship ... then you jump to another concept entirely, which is the God of Israel being compared to the false (and nonexistent) gods which were being "formed" by men out of gold, silver, and stone. Those are not even remotely the same discussion.

Absolutely false!!! The context was the God of Israel being compared to ALL others who claimed to be gods. It proves that there is only ONE God, and clarifies the baptism scene so we are not stuck with polytheism due to looking at the existence of the three persons of God in one place. It is part of the overall discussion that you are trying to dismiss by inventing a "back door" for there to actually be other gods while YHWH was claiming ignorance of them.



The issue is, ...in what sense are they one? As demonstrated, your "Biblical evidence" is taken from scripture which is addressing an entirely different issue altogether. You have used the worst interpretation tactics available in order to attempt your argument.

Horse hockey!! The verses I have cited are a DIRECT answer to the question "How many gods are there?" and they are unanimous when they say ONE.



Again, the idea that distinct individual beings, who are NOT the same single metaphysical substance, become "one" is precisely what Jesus addresses here:

"John 17: 22 "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one."

And to seal the deal, Christ expresses that it is the same kind of "oneness" that He shares with the Father.

When speaking of their united purpose, yes. But not when discussing their ontology.



My interpretation of the Biblical text is rock solid Bill. Your references to false idols in comparison to Jehovah are very, very weak.

Rubbish. Your inventing a silent back door is what is weak. I can see it now...

Jesus to Israel: There is no other God except me
Father to Jesus: Ahem, what about me?
Jesus to Father: Shhh... I wasn't talking about you! They don't get to know about you just yet
Father to Jesus: Oh, ok.
Jesus to Israel: No God was formed before me
Father to Jesus: Um, yeah, I was...
Jesus to Father: SHHH!!! Just sit back REEEEEAL quiet and let me do all the talking. I'll tell them the REALTM truth when I get there.
Father: You DO know the 9th commandment was to not lie, right?

Bill the Cat
11-14-2014, 11:53 AM
Again, Cherbonnier's article is relevant. This article is relevant, because many of the "mystic" theologies still prevail in mainstream religions of the world today, including Judaism, Islam and Christianity. This includes your views Bill.


3) In what sense is God "one"?
Another axiom of religious philosophy is the unity of God. Again, however, the definition of "unity" will change as one passes from the mystical to the biblical system of thought. In both systems, the meaning of "unity" reflects their respective definitions of "unlimited." For the mystic, God can only be unlimited if He is the sole existent being. If there were two "gods," then the second would, by its very existence, "condition" the first. No account of the one would be complete without reference to the other. Carried to its conclusion, this logic forbids not only a second "god," but the existence of anything else at all. Anything "outside" God would reduce Him to one term in a relation. God must therefore be without relation; in a word, "unconditioned," or "absolute." Consequently, when the mystic speaks of the unity of God, he means "the one without a second," or "that than which there is no other."7 For the mystic, in other words, the unity of God means monism....

It is precisely this conception of unity which the Bible opposes. When the prophet cried, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one God," he was not referring to "the one without a second." He was calling attention to God's constancy of purpose, his integrity of character. ....

The Jews were not primarily interested in the question, "How many gods are there?," but rather in the question, "To whom do I owe my allegiance?" For them, the very idea of a "pantheon" would have involved a contradiction in terms, for it makes a virtue of divided loyalty. Only in later Judaism did they finally conclude that Yahweh was the sole God. ..."

http://www.philosophy-religion.org/cherbonnier/logic-bible.htm E. La B. Cherbonnier - Harvard Theological Review (Vol. 55, 1962)

Again we see how you have misused and misinterpreted those Old Testament verses that you attempted (in vague reference) in your last post to me.

* The concept of "one God" portrayed by ancient Israelites is different than you claim.

* The reference of "other gods" being formed is in an entirely different context.

-7up

I've already shown numerous times what Cherbonnier meant by using the definitions he himself was using and teaching his students. I won't tread that ground again. You misuse him. End of discussion.

seven7up
11-15-2014, 01:32 AM
7up: Second, I would say that LDS views are often considered similar to a version of the Trinity, one that has been called "Social Trinitarianism".


Show me any remotely orthodox view of the Trinity that has God the Father evolving from a flesh and blood sinner.

There are two problems with your short post here Cow Poke.

1) First, the similarities to "Social Trinitarianism" and LDS has to do with the belief that these distinct persons are "one" with a "perichoresis" or an interpenetration of lives through spiritual communication which results in this deep kind of harmonious relationship between these different individuals.

Rather than addressing that, you just went off on a different topic, whereby you expressed that you believe that the Biblical text does not directly address what God the Father was doing or what he has done prior to the creation described in the book of Genesis.

2) Joseph Smith did not say that God the Father "evolved from a flesh and blood sinner". I have already explained this on this forum, but perhaps you missed it, so, I will explain again.

Joseph Smith wanted to preach about who and what God is. What kind of being is God? What is He like? If you were to see God, what would God look like? That is what Joseph Smith is getting at and he addressed it in the King Follet Sermon. He wanted to dispel the concepts of God which say that God is some kind of literally omnipresent substance which literally exists in the entirety of existence. He wanted to explain that God is not "wholly other" like modern Christianity teaches. So, near the beginning of the sermon, Joseph says:

"In the first place, I wish to go back to the beginning--to the Creation. That is the starting point if we are to be fully acquainted with the mind, the purposes, and the decrees of the great Elohim who sits in yonder heavens. We must have an understanding of God himself in the beginning. If we start right, it is easy to go right all the time; but if we start wrong, it is a hard matter to get right."

So, if we misunderstand God and God's relationship to the Creation from the beginning, then incorrect interpretations of scripture will follow after that. This is why in previous discussions I have stressed the the importance of rejecting Ex Nihilo creation (i.e. creation out of nothing), because so many erroneous conclusions come from that false premise.

"I want to ask this congregation, every man, woman and child, to answer the question in his own heart what kind of a being God is. What kind of a being is God? Does any man or woman know? Have any of you seen him, heard him, communed with him? Here is the question, perhaps, that will from this time forth occupy your attention. The apostle [John] says, "This is life eternal"--to know God and Jesus Christ, whom he has sent... I want you all to know God, to be familiar with him. And if I can bring you to him, all persecutions against me will cease; you will know that I am his servant, for I speak as one having authority."

Joseph Smith claimed to have seen both God the Father AND Jesus Christ as distinct personal beings. He believed that he was chosen by God to reveal the true nature of God to the world, and was given authority to do so.

"God himself, who sits enthroned in yonder heaven, is a man like one of you. That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today and you were to see the great God who holds this world in its orbit and upholds all things by his power, you would see him in the image and very form of a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion and image of God. He received instruction from and walked, talked, and conversed with him as one man talks and communes with another. "

Now, critics of the LDS church will just take the first sentence here out of context. They will say that Mormons believe that God was like one of us in every sense. That is not what Joseph Smith is saying. He explained here what he means. He means that God is a personal being with hands, feet, head, etc. We are created in the image of God. In the Garden of Eden, God literally was walking and talking with God, exactly as the History of the Old Testament describes it. Moses had a similar experience, when "The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend." (Exodus 33:11) Or when the elders of Israel saw God, "and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself."

Joseph Smith is expressing the exact same concept in this sermon. If you were to ask Moses or the elders of Israel, what kind of being does God look like, they would describe "the image and very form of a man."

The sermon given by Joseph Smith expresses the idea that God the Father, at some point in eternities past, lived in a human mortal body like we have (i.e. a man like us, and a man like Jesus Christ was a man), and then God the Father obtained a resurrected body in the same way that Jesus Christ obtained a resurrected body here on Earth.

"What did Jesus say? Jesus said, "As the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power." To do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious--in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again. If you do not believe it, you do not believe the Bible."

Now, let's look for some context of the verse that Joseph Smith is referring to in John chapter 5, whereby the Jews accuse Jesus and Jesus responds by discussing the resurrection,

18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.

19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, “Amen, Amen I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do; for what things soever He doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

20 For the Father loveth the Son and showeth Him all things that He Himself doeth; and He will show Him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will.

Just a couple verses later, Jesus returns to the topic of resurrection,

24 Verily, verily I say unto you, he that heareth My Word and believeth in Him that sent Me, hath everlasting life and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life.

What does it mean to pass from death unto life in this verse? It means resurrection from the dead:

25 “Verily, verily I say unto you, the hour is coming and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live.

26 For as the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself,

Joseph Smith was teaching that God the Father has life in Himself, meaning that He is a resurrected Being. When the prophet Joseph said that God is a man like us, he was saying that God the Father is a man like us in the same sense that Jesus Christ is a man like us. Again, this is why Joseph said:

"God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did, ...

What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. I saw my Father work out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom I shall present it to my Father so that he obtains kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt his glory. And so Jesus treads in his tracks to inherit what God did before."

As you can see, Joseph Smith was indicating that God the Father was a man in the same way that Jesus Christ was a man.

Jesus Christ has the exact nature and being as God the Father, but they have lives which are closely knit and a relationship/bond between them. Nevertheless, they are distinct beings from one another. They are not the same being, but instead Jesus, as a perfect Son, is the is the exact same kind of being, who is "one" with God the Father in the Biblical sense as described in John chapter 17. Furthermore, we see that one of Christ's missions on Earth was to show the world exactly what kind of Being God the Father is, in every sense,
"in these last days [God the Father] has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. And [Jesus] who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

This is also what Jesus means when he says, "If you know Me, you will also know My Father. From now on you do know Him and have seen Him." (John 14:7) He does not mean that Jesus and God the Father are the same person. He is saying that He is a perfect representation of the kind of being and nature of God the Father in every sense.

-7up

seven7up
11-15-2014, 02:17 AM
7up: The figurative "oneness" in the Bible is consistent and it is found all over the Biblical text and is nothing like what Trinitarians present it to be. Here are some examples:
Mark 10:8 A man will cleave unto his wife, "they twain shall be ONE flesh". ...
Acts 4:32 multitude ... of one heart and of one soul
Rom. 12:5 we, being many, are one body in Christ
2 Cor. 13:11 Be perfect ... of one mind
Gal. 3:28 ye are all one in Christ
Philip. 1:27 one spirit, with one mind striving together
"John 17: 22 "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one."


The "No other God" language is all over the Bible. You've been schooled on it dozens of times.

Sorry, but that is not ontology either. You want clear statements on ontological oneness?

Exodus 8:10 Then he said, “Tomorrow.” So he said, “May it be according to your word, that you may know that there is no one like the Lord our God.
Deuteronomy 4:35 To you it was shown that you might know that the Lord, He is God; there is no other besides Him.
Deuteronomy 4:39 Know therefore today, and take it to your heart, that the Lord, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other.
Deuteronomy 32:39 ‘See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me;
2 Samuel 7:22 For this reason You are great, O Lord God; for there is none like You, and there is no God besides You, according to all that we have heard with our ears.
2 Samuel 22:32 “For who is God, besides the Lord? And who is a rock, besides our God?
1 Kings 8:60 so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the Lord is God; there is no one else.
1 Chronicles 17:20 O Lord, there is none like You, nor is there any God besides You, according to all that we have heard with our ears.
Psalm 18:31 For who is God, but the Lord? And who is a rock, except our God
Isaiah 37:20 Now, O Lord our God, deliver us from his hand that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that You alone, Lord, are God.”
Isaiah 43:10 “You are My witnesses,” declares the Lord, “And My servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and believe Me And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me.
Isaiah 44:6 “Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: ‘I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me.
Isaiah 44:8 ‘Do not tremble and do not be afraid; Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it? And you are My witnesses. Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any other Rock? I know of none.’”
Isaiah 45:14 Thus says the Lord, “The products of Egypt and the merchandise of Cush And the Sabeans, men of stature, Will come over to you and will be yours; They will walk behind you, they will come over in chains And will bow down to you; They will make supplication to you: ‘Surely, God is with you, and there is none else, No other God.’”
Isaiah 45:18 For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it [a]a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited), “I am the Lord, and there is none else.
Isaiah 45:21 “Declare and set forth your case; Indeed, let them consult together. Who has announced this from of old? Who has long since declared it? Is it not I, the Lord? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me.
Isaiah 46:9 “Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me,

None of those statements are concerning "ontological oneness" as you claim. I can easily demonstrate how you are absolutely wrong on this. That language is clearly within the context of Jehovah being compared to idols. The Hebrews were to to deny the false gods and worship Yahweh/Jehovah.* It really is just that simple.* Allow me to demonstrate the context completely in order to leave no doubt at all.

Israelites was reared in an atmosphere of idolatry. There were numerous deities among the Egyptians for example.
This was described in the first of the Ten Commandments: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me," (Exodus 20:2-5)

This means, beside me, above me, or equal to me, or to be an object of worship.

"Yet I am the Lord thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt have no god but me: for there is no savior beside me." (Hos. 8:4; 13:2-4.)
Many prophets spoke of the other kinds of "gods" being referred to:
"And all the graven images thereof shall be beaten to pieces, and all the hires thereof shall be burned with the fire, and all the idols thereof will I lay desolate: for she gathered it of the hire of an harlot, and they shall return to the hire of an harlot." (Mic. 1:7; see also Habakkuk 2:18; Zechariah 10:2; 13:2.)

"Tell ye, and bring [them] near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.* Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else." (Isaiah 45:21-22)

So, with all of this in mind, you have to understand that the very phrase "none besides me" is a Hebrew idiom describing superiority over the false gods of other nations.

(This is the nature of the Hebrew language. For example, in Hebrew when you say "at the head", it does not necessarily really mean the actual head of an animal. It is translated as, "at the top" or "in the beginning" and literally translating the phrase with an actual "head" is misinterpretation.)

Again, "no other" and "none besides me" does not mean that there are literally no others at all and I can demonstrate this to you in the Biblical text. In fact, this is best demonstrated elsewhere in Isaiah. When Isaiah writes “there is none beside me” in regard to God, and then writes “there is none beside me” in regard to Babylon (Isa 47:8-10), the phrase means the same thing in each case. They mean the same thing, even if in one instance it is a true statement (God’s case) and in the second instance it is not a true statement (Babylon’s case). Isaiah was saying that the Babylonians felt that they were superior to others; he was not saying that they literally believed that there are no others in existence.

So, the Old Testament prophets were constantly condemning Israel for the worship of idols, and urged them to worship the only God that could truly provide them with salvation.* That is what the scriptures you refer to clearly and unambiguously teach. Furthermore, we know that other beings, namely humans, who can be actually called "gods" exist, because both in the Old Testament AND New Testament. Those who are simply given authority by God are called "gods".* These people actually exist, thus making God the "God of gods" and the "Lord of lords".

Now, in the context which is actually pertinent to our current discussion (as opposed to your misuse of the Old Testament), there are instances where Jesus Christ is referring to the Father. It is clear from that context that Jesus Christ, who is fully Deity, claims to have a God above him, who is the Father. Jesus Christ (God the Son), has a God (God the Father). God has a God. This is perfectly consistent with LDS theology.

-7up

P.S.

Bill quotes: John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God

Yes. In the Beginning (see Genesis 1:1), Jesus Christ was Deity ("was God") and He was with God the Father ("was with God").

This is a statement against the Trinity. You cannot have a single indivisible substance that it "with" itself.

seven7up
11-15-2014, 02:25 AM
I've already shown numerous times what Cherbonnier meant by using the definitions he himself was using and teaching his students. I won't tread that ground again. You misuse him. End of discussion.

Your memory is severely flawed. When we flushed this discussion out, we find that you were constantly at odds with Cherbonnier. This was most starkly described in my posts to you on this thread, posts 195 and 196, found here on this link (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?1803-Mormon-Trinity&p=86383&viewfull=1#post86383).

-7up

Bill the Cat
11-15-2014, 05:46 AM
7up: The figurative "oneness" in the Bible is consistent and it is found all over the Biblical text and is nothing like what Trinitarians present it to be. Here are some examples:
Mark 10:8 A man will cleave unto his wife, "they twain shall be ONE flesh". ...
Acts 4:32 multitude ... of one heart and of one soul
Rom. 12:5 we, being many, are one body in Christ
2 Cor. 13:11 Be perfect ... of one mind
Gal. 3:28 ye are all one in Christ
Philip. 1:27 one spirit, with one mind striving together
"John 17: 22 "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one."



None of those statements are concerning "ontological oneness" as you claim.

Yes they are. They are clear claims of YHWH being the only God in existence. Ontologically, there is only ONE God. That's what all of these verses mean. You have to IMPORT a secret "team" of gods that YHWH refuses to tell the Jews about. It's patent eisegesis.


I can easily demonstrate how you are absolutely wrong on this. That language is clearly within the context of Jehovah being compared to idols.

Because anything else that anyone claims to be a god is a false idol. This is blatant monotheism. You have to twist and invent other "same team' gods to make your heresy work.


The Hebrews were to to deny the false gods and worship Yahweh/Jehovah.

Until He came to earth, then he "sprung the goose" that they were to worship Elohim alone. Your YHWH is a liar.


* It really is just that simple.* Allow me to demonstrate the context completely in order to leave no doubt at all.

Israelites was reared in an atmosphere of idolatry. There were numerous deities among the Egyptians for example.
This was described in the first of the Ten Commandments: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me," (Exodus 20:2-5)

This means, beside me, above me, or equal to me, or to be an object of worship.

So, placing Elohim above Himself when He came to earth was a direct violation of that command, regardless of them being tag team partners.


"Yet I am the Lord thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt have no god but me: for there is no savior beside me." (Hos. 8:4; 13:2-4.)
Many prophets spoke of the other kinds of "gods" being referred to:
"And all the graven images thereof shall be beaten to pieces, and all the hires thereof shall be burned with the fire, and all the idols thereof will I lay desolate: for she gathered it of the hire of an harlot, and they shall return to the hire of an harlot." (Mic. 1:7; see also Habakkuk 2:18; Zechariah 10:2; 13:2.)

"Tell ye, and bring [them] near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.* Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else." (Isaiah 45:21-22)

So, with all of this in mind, you have to understand that the very phrase "none besides me" is a Hebrew idiom describing superiority over the false gods of other nations.

No it isn't. It's a statement of monotheism.


Again, "no other" and "none besides me" does not mean that there are literally no others at all and I can demonstrate this to you in the Biblical text. In fact, this is best demonstrated elsewhere in Isaiah. When Isaiah writes “there is none beside me” in regard to God, and then writes “there is none beside me” in regard to Babylon (Isa 47:8-10), the phrase means the same thing in each case. They mean the same thing, even if in one instance it is a true statement (God’s case) and in the second instance it is not a true statement (Babylon’s case). Isaiah was saying that the Babylonians felt that they were superior to others; he was not saying that they literally believed that there are no others in existence.

When referring to authority, Babylon believed they were it, and that none else had authority, so yes, it did believe there were none in existence with authority but them.


So, the Old Testament prophets were constantly condemning Israel for the worship of idols, and urged them to worship the only God that could truly provide them with salvation.* That is what the scriptures you refer to clearly and unambiguously teach. Furthermore, we know that other beings, namely humans, who can be actually called "gods" exist, because both in the Old Testament AND New Testament. Those who are simply given authority by God are called "gods".* These people actually exist, thus making God the "God of gods" and the "Lord of lords".

Now, in the context which is actually pertinent to our current discussion (as opposed to your misuse of the Old Testament), there are instances where Jesus Christ is referring to the Father. It is clear from that context that Jesus Christ, who is fully Deity, claims to have a God above him, who is the Father. Jesus Christ (God the Son), has a God (God the Father). God has a God. This is perfectly consistent with LDS theology.

-7up

P.S.

Bill quotes: John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God

Yes. In the Beginning (see Genesis 1:1), Jesus Christ was Deity ("was God") and He was with God the Father ("was with God").

This is a statement against the Trinity. You cannot have a single indivisible substance that it "with" itself.

I've shown you don't know what you are talking about and that you have made things up.

Cow Poke
11-15-2014, 05:51 AM
There are two problems with your short post here Cow Poke.

No, actually there are LOTS of problems with your LONG post which STILL does not deal with the fact that your false prophet continually makes up theology as he goes along, changes it at will to suit himself, and is a liar and a hypocrite.

But please feel free to continue to spew forth confusion and fairy tales.

Kind Debater
11-25-2014, 07:44 AM
None of those statements are concerning "ontological oneness" as you claim. I can easily demonstrate how you are absolutely wrong on this. That language is clearly within the context of Jehovah being compared to idols. The Hebrews were to to deny the false gods and worship Yahweh/Jehovah.


Let the heavens praise your wonders, O Lord,
your faithfulness in the assembly of the holy ones!
For who in the skies can be compared to the Lord?
Who among the heavenly beings is like the Lord,
a God greatly to be feared in the council of the holy ones,
and awesome above all who are around him?
O Lord God of hosts,
who is mighty as you are, O Lord,
with your faithfulness all around you?
--Psalm 89:5-8