Mormon Trinity

[seven7up]

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.

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

Source: http://www.philosophy-religion.org/cherbonnier/index.htm

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.

© Copyright Original Source

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

[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]

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/c...ogic-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]

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/c...ogic-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]

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.

f3unbm.jpg

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.

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 REAL^TM truth when I get there.
Father: You DO know the 9th commandment was to not lie, right?

[Bill the Cat]

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/c...ogic-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.