|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 3:27 pm
Elder Holland of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Quote: So any criticism that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not hold the contemporary Christian view of God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost is not a comment about our commitment to Christ but rather a recognition (accurate, I might add) that our view of the Godhead breaks with post–New Testament Christian history and returns to the doctrine taught by Jesus Himself. Now, a word about that post–New Testament history might be helpful. In the year a.d. 325 the Roman emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea to address—among other things—the growing issue of God’s alleged “trinity in unity.” What emerged from the heated contentions of churchmen, philosophers, and ecclesiastical dignitaries came to be known (after another 125 years and three more major councils) as the Nicene Creed, with later reformulations such as the Athanasian Creed. These various evolutions and iterations of creeds—and others to come over the centuries—declared the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be abstract, absolute, transcendent, immanent, consubstantial, coeternal, and unknowable, without body, parts, or passions and dwelling outside space and time. In such creeds all three members are separate persons, but they are a single being, the oft-noted “mystery of the trinity.” They are three distinct persons, yet not three Gods but one. All three persons are incomprehensible, yet it is one God who is incomprehensible. We agree with our critics on at least that point—that such a formulation for divinity is truly incomprehensible. With such a confusing definition of God being imposed upon the church, little wonder that a fourth-century monk cried out, “Woe is me! They have taken my God away from me, … and I know not whom to adore or to address.” How are we to trust, love, worship, to say nothing of strive to be like, One who is incomprehensible and unknowable? What of Jesus’s prayer to His Father in Heaven that “this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent”? It is not our purpose to demean any person’s belief nor the doctrine of any religion. We extend to all the same respect for their doctrine that we are asking for ours. (That, too, is an article of our faith.) But if one says we are not Christians because we do not hold a fourth- or fifth-century view of the Godhead, then what of those first Christian Saints, many of whom were eyewitnesses of the living Christ, who did not hold such a view either? What do you think of the above statement? Do you find some truth in it? I feel that this statement very much proves that alas, the LDS are very true and real Christians, from this and other various points.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 4:52 pm
I don't see how this makes your position true but a rehearse of the age old argument. This alone is not why the christian community find LDS obscure, to believe so would be stretching it... i accept you as a christian brother as long as you pursue Christ with fervor/aid of the holy spirit , in this i believe you will know the truth and it will set you free.
(an argument in the past will not produce evidence i will stick with my bible, pray for me if im wrong)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 7:05 pm
I understand your position LordTalis. The thing I'm curious about is everybody else's position. I would think that this would be the God of the Bible, rather than the God of the Nicean Creed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 7:11 pm
Someoneiknow Elder Holland of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Quote: So any criticism that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not hold the contemporary Christian view of God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost is not a comment about our commitment to Christ but rather a recognition (accurate, I might add) that our view of the Godhead breaks with post–New Testament Christian history and returns to the doctrine taught by Jesus Himself. Now, a word about that post–New Testament history might be helpful. In the year a.d. 325 the Roman emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea to address—among other things—the growing issue of God’s alleged “trinity in unity.” What emerged from the heated contentions of churchmen, philosophers, and ecclesiastical dignitaries came to be known (after another 125 years and three more major councils) as the Nicene Creed, with later reformulations such as the Athanasian Creed. These various evolutions and iterations of creeds—and others to come over the centuries—declared the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be abstract, absolute, transcendent, immanent, consubstantial, coeternal, and unknowable, without body, parts, or passions and dwelling outside space and time. In such creeds all three members are separate persons, but they are a single being, the oft-noted “mystery of the trinity.” They are three distinct persons, yet not three Gods but one. All three persons are incomprehensible, yet it is one God who is incomprehensible. We agree with our critics on at least that point—that such a formulation for divinity is truly incomprehensible. With such a confusing definition of God being imposed upon the church, little wonder that a fourth-century monk cried out, “Woe is me! They have taken my God away from me, … and I know not whom to adore or to address.” How are we to trust, love, worship, to say nothing of strive to be like, One who is incomprehensible and unknowable? What of Jesus’s prayer to His Father in Heaven that “this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent”? It is not our purpose to demean any person’s belief nor the doctrine of any religion. We extend to all the same respect for their doctrine that we are asking for ours. (That, too, is an article of our faith.) But if one says we are not Christians because we do not hold a fourth- or fifth-century view of the Godhead, then what of those first Christian Saints, many of whom were eyewitnesses of the living Christ, who did not hold such a view either? What do you think of the above statement? Do you find some truth in it? I feel that this statement very much proves that alas, the LDS are very true and real Christians, from this and other various points. I find the statement largely ridiculous beginning with the suggestion that Christian theology of the trinity began in the 4th century, it did not. Do you not believe that Jesus was a Jew, that the Christian faith stemmed off of Judaism? Not once in that faith, in sacred scripture or tradition is there any shred of evidence at all suggesting that Jesus is a God separate from the father. There may have been Christians who didn't believe him to be God but that's a bit more understandable especially in a growing faith that was separating from one that recognized only one God. Go back to the second century and the idea of the trinity as expressed by Christians today was very clearly present. Justin Martyr speaks of the mystery, Theophilis of Antioch, and once you get to Tertullian it's presence in Christian theology becomes inarguably clear: "three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds. "
SourceTertuallian's Against Praxeas was written in 216 AD which Elder Holland should have been aware of, it was written before Constantine, so either Elder Holland is a liar who is trying to willfully mislead you or he's ignorant of early Christian history...which is it? 1 John 5:7 7 And there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 6:06 pm
Semiremis Someoneiknow Elder Holland of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Quote: So any criticism that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not hold the contemporary Christian view of God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost is not a comment about our commitment to Christ but rather a recognition (accurate, I might add) that our view of the Godhead breaks with post–New Testament Christian history and returns to the doctrine taught by Jesus Himself. Now, a word about that post–New Testament history might be helpful. In the year a.d. 325 the Roman emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea to address—among other things—the growing issue of God’s alleged “trinity in unity.” What emerged from the heated contentions of churchmen, philosophers, and ecclesiastical dignitaries came to be known (after another 125 years and three more major councils) as the Nicene Creed, with later reformulations such as the Athanasian Creed. These various evolutions and iterations of creeds—and others to come over the centuries—declared the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be abstract, absolute, transcendent, immanent, consubstantial, coeternal, and unknowable, without body, parts, or passions and dwelling outside space and time. In such creeds all three members are separate persons, but they are a single being, the oft-noted “mystery of the trinity.” They are three distinct persons, yet not three Gods but one. All three persons are incomprehensible, yet it is one God who is incomprehensible. We agree with our critics on at least that point—that such a formulation for divinity is truly incomprehensible. With such a confusing definition of God being imposed upon the church, little wonder that a fourth-century monk cried out, “Woe is me! They have taken my God away from me, … and I know not whom to adore or to address.” How are we to trust, love, worship, to say nothing of strive to be like, One who is incomprehensible and unknowable? What of Jesus’s prayer to His Father in Heaven that “this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent”? It is not our purpose to demean any person’s belief nor the doctrine of any religion. We extend to all the same respect for their doctrine that we are asking for ours. (That, too, is an article of our faith.) But if one says we are not Christians because we do not hold a fourth- or fifth-century view of the Godhead, then what of those first Christian Saints, many of whom were eyewitnesses of the living Christ, who did not hold such a view either? What do you think of the above statement? Do you find some truth in it? I feel that this statement very much proves that alas, the LDS are very true and real Christians, from this and other various points. I find the statement largely ridiculous beginning with the suggestion that Christian theology of the trinity began in the 4th century, it did not. Do you not believe that Jesus was a Jew, that the Christian faith stemmed off of Judaism? Not once in that faith, in sacred scripture or tradition is there any shred of evidence at all suggesting that Jesus is a God separate from the father. There may have been Christians who didn't believe him to be God but that's a bit more understandable especially in a growing faith that was separating from one that recognized only one God. Go back to the second century and the idea of the trinity as expressed by Christians today was very clearly present. Justin Martyr speaks of the mystery, Theophilis of Antioch, and once you get to Tertullian it's presence in Christian theology becomes inarguably clear: "three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds. "
SourceTertuallian's Against Praxeas was written in 216 AD which Elder Holland should have been aware of, it was written before Constantine, so either Elder Holland is a liar who is trying to willfully mislead you or he's ignorant of early Christian history...which is it? 1 John 5:7 7 And there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.Your first part is laughable largely because of the fact that one, the Jews did not and still do not recognize Jesus Christ as the Messiah, or the Chosen One. Jews do not believe in any subdivision of the a trinity. They believe that God is only One and indivisable. He can be anything, but He is not a subdivision of another essence of the same Being. So your assumption about Jewish theology is wrong. As to your second assumption about an Apostle, Who was it that stated the very difference of Christ and the Father but Christ Himself. This would be clearly evident in St. Matthew 7:21 ...but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven... St. Matthew 10:32 ...him will I also confess before my Father... St. Matthew 12:50 ...do the will of my Father... This scripture is really powerful, noting that Heavenly Father must have some corporeal face of some sort St. Matthew 18:10 ...That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. Or perhaps other prophets even before the 2nd century Romans 15:6 ...even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ 1 John 4:14 ...Father sent the Son to be the Saviour... I do believe that those would be earlier than your quote, and more to the source of our actual Saviour. But to appease, even Clement notice a difference between God the Father and Jesus Christ, for it is noted in his first epistle. So, even though you bring to mind one apostle that came later from Christ's ministry, I believe Elder Holland was pointing out that from the Nicean discussion/dispute/general apostacy of Christ's church, that the trinitarian concept became widely accepted from that time because they were the council of the church, and everybody else at that time was of lowly regard and could not dispute such thoughts, as is stated by a monk of the time of the 4th century from the quote of Elder Holland.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 9:10 pm
Someoneiknow Semiremis Someoneiknow Elder Holland of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Quote: So any criticism that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not hold the contemporary Christian view of God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost is not a comment about our commitment to Christ but rather a recognition (accurate, I might add) that our view of the Godhead breaks with post–New Testament Christian history and returns to the doctrine taught by Jesus Himself. Now, a word about that post–New Testament history might be helpful. In the year a.d. 325 the Roman emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea to address—among other things—the growing issue of God’s alleged “trinity in unity.” What emerged from the heated contentions of churchmen, philosophers, and ecclesiastical dignitaries came to be known (after another 125 years and three more major councils) as the Nicene Creed, with later reformulations such as the Athanasian Creed. These various evolutions and iterations of creeds—and others to come over the centuries—declared the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be abstract, absolute, transcendent, immanent, consubstantial, coeternal, and unknowable, without body, parts, or passions and dwelling outside space and time. In such creeds all three members are separate persons, but they are a single being, the oft-noted “mystery of the trinity.” They are three distinct persons, yet not three Gods but one. All three persons are incomprehensible, yet it is one God who is incomprehensible. We agree with our critics on at least that point—that such a formulation for divinity is truly incomprehensible. With such a confusing definition of God being imposed upon the church, little wonder that a fourth-century monk cried out, “Woe is me! They have taken my God away from me, … and I know not whom to adore or to address.” How are we to trust, love, worship, to say nothing of strive to be like, One who is incomprehensible and unknowable? What of Jesus’s prayer to His Father in Heaven that “this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent”? It is not our purpose to demean any person’s belief nor the doctrine of any religion. We extend to all the same respect for their doctrine that we are asking for ours. (That, too, is an article of our faith.) But if one says we are not Christians because we do not hold a fourth- or fifth-century view of the Godhead, then what of those first Christian Saints, many of whom were eyewitnesses of the living Christ, who did not hold such a view either? What do you think of the above statement? Do you find some truth in it? I feel that this statement very much proves that alas, the LDS are very true and real Christians, from this and other various points. I find the statement largely ridiculous beginning with the suggestion that Christian theology of the trinity began in the 4th century, it did not. Do you not believe that Jesus was a Jew, that the Christian faith stemmed off of Judaism? Not once in that faith, in sacred scripture or tradition is there any shred of evidence at all suggesting that Jesus is a God separate from the father. There may have been Christians who didn't believe him to be God but that's a bit more understandable especially in a growing faith that was separating from one that recognized only one God. Go back to the second century and the idea of the trinity as expressed by Christians today was very clearly present. Justin Martyr speaks of the mystery, Theophilis of Antioch, and once you get to Tertullian it's presence in Christian theology becomes inarguably clear: "three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds. "
SourceTertuallian's Against Praxeas was written in 216 AD which Elder Holland should have been aware of, it was written before Constantine, so either Elder Holland is a liar who is trying to willfully mislead you or he's ignorant of early Christian history...which is it? 1 John 5:7 7 And there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.Your first part is laughable largely because of the fact that one, the Jews did not and still do not recognize Jesus Christ as the Messiah, or the Chosen One. Jews do not believe in any subdivision of the a trinity. They believe that God is only One and indivisable. He can be anything, but He is not a subdivision of another essence of the same Being. So your assumption about Jewish theology is wrong. As to your second assumption about an Apostle, Who was it that stated the very difference of Christ and the Father but Christ Himself. This would be clearly evident in St. Matthew 7:21 ...but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven... St. Matthew 10:32 ...him will I also confess before my Father... St. Matthew 12:50 ...do the will of my Father... This scripture is really powerful, noting that Heavenly Father must have some corporeal face of some sort St. Matthew 18:10 ...That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. Or perhaps other prophets even before the 2nd century Romans 15:6 ...even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ 1 John 4:14 ...Father sent the Son to be the Saviour... I do believe that those would be earlier than your quote, and more to the source of our actual Saviour. But to appease, even Clement notice a difference between God the Father and Jesus Christ, for it is noted in his first epistle. So, even though you bring to mind one apostle that came later from Christ's ministry, I believe Elder Holland was pointing out that from the Nicean discussion/dispute/general apostacy of Christ's church, that the trinitarian concept became widely accepted from that time because they were the council of the church, and everybody else at that time was of lowly regard and could not dispute such thoughts, as is stated by a monk of the time of the 4th century from the quote of Elder Holland. I never said that Jews accept Jesus as the Messiah and I'm not really sure where you got that from, so that part of your post doesn't apply to anything in my post. What I was talking about was the separation from Jew to Christian, a lot of Jews at the time were looking for the Messiah, they expected him and some found him in Jesus and Christians broke off of that sect. Jews believe in one God, so did the early Christians and that's obvious in early Christian literature. I'm not sure what you are trying to get at with the biblical verses you posted, none of them touch upon whether or not God the father has a 'corporeal face'. God is referenced as a father that doesn't mean the bible is talking about a physical father as in biological...God the father is never spoken of in that way. What Elder Holland wrote is completely misleading if not outright lying. He posed this question: "But if one says we are not Christians because we do not hold a fourth- or fifth-century view of the Godhead, then what of those first Christian Saints, many of whom were eyewitnesses of the living Christ, who did not hold such a view either?"The theology of the Trinity is clearly not a fourth or fifth-century view (edit: meaning it didn't originate then), it is expressed in the bible and later written about by early Christian, and done so in a clear and concise manner in the very beginning of the 3rd century. You never really talked about the last verse I posted: 1 John 5:7 7 And there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.You just have to put it all together. There is only one God, Jesus is God, the holy spirit is God = "these three are one". The entire bible contradicts what the Mormon Church claims on a lot of the major topics, have you ever tried to put the book of Mormon down, forget about what it says for a bit, forget about what Joseph Smith says and just read. You'll find a completely different story than what Smith came up with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 9:37 pm
Agreed with Semiremis, 100%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 7:13 am
Semiremis Someoneiknow Semiremis Someoneiknow Elder Holland of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Quote: So any criticism that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not hold the contemporary Christian view of God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost is not a comment about our commitment to Christ but rather a recognition (accurate, I might add) that our view of the Godhead breaks with post–New Testament Christian history and returns to the doctrine taught by Jesus Himself. Now, a word about that post–New Testament history might be helpful. In the year a.d. 325 the Roman emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea to address—among other things—the growing issue of God’s alleged “trinity in unity.” What emerged from the heated contentions of churchmen, philosophers, and ecclesiastical dignitaries came to be known (after another 125 years and three more major councils) as the Nicene Creed, with later reformulations such as the Athanasian Creed. These various evolutions and iterations of creeds—and others to come over the centuries—declared the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be abstract, absolute, transcendent, immanent, consubstantial, coeternal, and unknowable, without body, parts, or passions and dwelling outside space and time. In such creeds all three members are separate persons, but they are a single being, the oft-noted “mystery of the trinity.” They are three distinct persons, yet not three Gods but one. All three persons are incomprehensible, yet it is one God who is incomprehensible. We agree with our critics on at least that point—that such a formulation for divinity is truly incomprehensible. With such a confusing definition of God being imposed upon the church, little wonder that a fourth-century monk cried out, “Woe is me! They have taken my God away from me, … and I know not whom to adore or to address.” How are we to trust, love, worship, to say nothing of strive to be like, One who is incomprehensible and unknowable? What of Jesus’s prayer to His Father in Heaven that “this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent”? It is not our purpose to demean any person’s belief nor the doctrine of any religion. We extend to all the same respect for their doctrine that we are asking for ours. (That, too, is an article of our faith.) But if one says we are not Christians because we do not hold a fourth- or fifth-century view of the Godhead, then what of those first Christian Saints, many of whom were eyewitnesses of the living Christ, who did not hold such a view either? What do you think of the above statement? Do you find some truth in it? I feel that this statement very much proves that alas, the LDS are very true and real Christians, from this and other various points. I find the statement largely ridiculous beginning with the suggestion that Christian theology of the trinity began in the 4th century, it did not. Do you not believe that Jesus was a Jew, that the Christian faith stemmed off of Judaism? Not once in that faith, in sacred scripture or tradition is there any shred of evidence at all suggesting that Jesus is a God separate from the father. There may have been Christians who didn't believe him to be God but that's a bit more understandable especially in a growing faith that was separating from one that recognized only one God. Go back to the second century and the idea of the trinity as expressed by Christians today was very clearly present. Justin Martyr speaks of the mystery, Theophilis of Antioch, and once you get to Tertullian it's presence in Christian theology becomes inarguably clear: "three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds. "
SourceTertuallian's Against Praxeas was written in 216 AD which Elder Holland should have been aware of, it was written before Constantine, so either Elder Holland is a liar who is trying to willfully mislead you or he's ignorant of early Christian history...which is it? 1 John 5:7 7 And there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.Your first part is laughable largely because of the fact that one, the Jews did not and still do not recognize Jesus Christ as the Messiah, or the Chosen One. Jews do not believe in any subdivision of the a trinity. They believe that God is only One and indivisable. He can be anything, but He is not a subdivision of another essence of the same Being. So your assumption about Jewish theology is wrong. As to your second assumption about an Apostle, Who was it that stated the very difference of Christ and the Father but Christ Himself. This would be clearly evident in St. Matthew 7:21 ...but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven... St. Matthew 10:32 ...him will I also confess before my Father... St. Matthew 12:50 ...do the will of my Father... This scripture is really powerful, noting that Heavenly Father must have some corporeal face of some sort St. Matthew 18:10 ...That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. Or perhaps other prophets even before the 2nd century Romans 15:6 ...even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ 1 John 4:14 ...Father sent the Son to be the Saviour... I do believe that those would be earlier than your quote, and more to the source of our actual Saviour. But to appease, even Clement notice a difference between God the Father and Jesus Christ, for it is noted in his first epistle. So, even though you bring to mind one apostle that came later from Christ's ministry, I believe Elder Holland was pointing out that from the Nicean discussion/dispute/general apostacy of Christ's church, that the trinitarian concept became widely accepted from that time because they were the council of the church, and everybody else at that time was of lowly regard and could not dispute such thoughts, as is stated by a monk of the time of the 4th century from the quote of Elder Holland. I never said that Jews accept Jesus as the Messiah and I'm not really sure where you got that from, so that part of your post doesn't apply to anything in my post. What I was talking about was the separation from Jew to Christian, a lot of Jews at the time were looking for the Messiah, they expected him and some found him in Jesus and Christians broke off of that sect. Jews believe in one God, so did the early Christians and that's obvious in early Christian literature. I'm not sure what you are trying to get at with the biblical verses you posted, none of them touch upon whether or not God the father has a 'corporeal face'. God is referenced as a father that doesn't mean the bible is talking about a physical father as in biological...God the father is never spoken of in that way. What Elder Holland wrote is completely misleading if not outright lying. He posed this question: "But if one says we are not Christians because we do not hold a fourth- or fifth-century view of the Godhead, then what of those first Christian Saints, many of whom were eyewitnesses of the living Christ, who did not hold such a view either?"The theology of the Trinity is clearly not a fourth or fifth-century view (edit: meaning it didn't originate then), it is expressed in the bible and later written about by early Christian, and done so in a clear and concise manner in the very beginning of the 3rd century. You never really talked about the last verse I posted: 1 John 5:7 7 And there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.You just have to put it all together. There is only one God, Jesus is God, the holy spirit is God = "these three are one". The entire bible contradicts what the Mormon Church claims on a lot of the major topics, have you ever tried to put the book of Mormon down, forget about what it says for a bit, forget about what Joseph Smith says and just read. You'll find a completely different story than what Smith came up with. Actually, I have. I can't believe in your God who is incomprehensible, unrecognizable, unknowable, undiscernable, who we are incapable of knowing because He is far too complex for us to even get a basis of understanding about. I don't need any latter day revelations to tell me that, and neither does my wife. Why is it so hard to believe in the God that the Bible speaks of? Why, if Jesus and Heavenly Father are the same, would Jesus pray then, or why would He mention His Father? Why does Jesus Christ in the Bible not just state, I am the One, the Way, the Truth? Why does Christ always say "Not my will be done, but my Father's"? Because they are the same Being? So now you must be saying that Our God is a two faced person, who makes an unreality out of reality, to test us and make some come to the conclusion of the Latter-Day Saints? And that verse, it does not prove your stance. "One" can denote anything, one in purpose, one in thought, one in action, etc. It does not have to say "We are special people above your thought or comprehension and we are all together but seperate." I'm sure there was more to that scripture, but luckily we will never know since the "early christian fathers" loved to take and add to the Bible so much to add to their passing fancy. Just for the record, I never put in anything in my previous post about the Book of Mormon, or Joseph Smith. So why did you decide that that is where all of my resources come from? I even gave a source from Clement of Rome, one of the very first authorities but yet you did not even touch on that. Oh, and the part about Judaism, You said yourself Quote: Not once in that faith, in sacred scripture or tradition is there any shred of evidence at all suggesting that Jesus is a God separate from the father. Pretty easy when they don't believe Christ is a Messiah or anything of the sort. So why do you think this would prove you stance? It doesn't. Christianity is nothing like Judaism. It is not a stem, but a completely separate entity, with it's own rights and considerations. Christianity USED to be a stem, but it has been warped and changed so much through your "ancient fathers" that it is nothing of what Judaism is. Mormons could be more greatly considered to have a link to Judaism than any sect of Christianity today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 9:01 am
It seems to me, that you Mormons do not understand the concept that God does not need a physical body to be seen, felt, or herd. Furthermore, God does not have to be withing the physical universe to affect our world.
Also, the Trinity makes absolute sense to me, and to most Christians. I don't understand how, after reading the New Testament, one can honestly beleive that God is the Father, Jesus is simply His Son, and the Holy Spirit is some other benevolent spirit. Throughout the New Testament, the equalities between God being the Son, Father and Holy Spirit is abundantly clear.
Further, if they were not equal, and one, then the Bible would contradict itself, discrediting it. For instance, when Jesus asserts He is "Lord over the Sabbath" that is one way of saying, I created the Sabbath and therefore am Lord over it. Yet, God created the Sabbath, so what is Jesus asserting? (Just one of the many examples).
Further, "not my will but my father's" can be asserted to the fact that Jesus did have human emotion, feeling and temptations. Therefore, Jesus is asserting his fact that not the human will, to preserve one's life, but the Godly will, to lay His life down for mankind and be the bridge between humanity and knowing a PERSONAL God.
What Semiremis was getting at when she said "Not once in that faith, in sacred scripture or tradition is there any shred of evidence at all suggesting that Jesus is a God separate from the father." Is that the Bible asserts there is one God, and it never asserts there is but the Father, then the Son being a minor deity, and then the Holy Spirit being another powerful spirit. At least that is what it seems like to me, I could be wrong.
Further, no matter how much you want to beleive that, it doesn't matter. Christianity is a stem from Judaism. Was not Jesus Jewish? Yes, he was. Was not Jesus a Jew, and do we not follow the teachings of Jesus? Then, obviously, it is a "stem" from Judaism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 12:09 pm
Someoneiknow Actually, I have. I can't believe in your God who is incomprehensible, unrecognizable, unknowable, undiscernable, who we are incapable of knowing because He is far too complex for us to even get a basis of understanding about. I don't need any latter day revelations to tell me that, and neither does my wife. Why is it so hard to believe in the God that the Bible speaks of? Why, if Jesus and Heavenly Father are the same, would Jesus pray then, or why would He mention His Father? Why does Jesus Christ in the Bible not just state, I am the One, the Way, the Truth? Why does Christ always say "Not my will be done, but my Father's"? Because they are the same Being? So now you must be saying that Our God is a two faced person, who makes an unreality out of reality, to test us and make some come to the conclusion of the Latter-Day Saints? And that verse, it does not prove your stance. "One" can denote anything, one in purpose, one in thought, one in action, etc. It does not have to say "We are special people above your thought or comprehension and we are all together but seperate." I'm sure there was more to that scripture, but luckily we will never know since the "early christian fathers" loved to take and add to the Bible so much to add to their passing fancy. Just for the record, I never put in anything in my previous post about the Book of Mormon, or Joseph Smith. So why did you decide that that is where all of my resources come from? I even gave a source from Clement of Rome, one of the very first authorities but yet you did not even touch on that. Oh, and the part about Judaism, You said yourself Quote: Not once in that faith, in sacred scripture or tradition is there any shred of evidence at all suggesting that Jesus is a God separate from the father. Pretty easy when they don't believe Christ is a Messiah or anything of the sort. So why do you think this would prove you stance? It doesn't. Christianity is nothing like Judaism. It is not a stem, but a completely separate entity, with it's own rights and considerations. Christianity USED to be a stem, but it has been warped and changed so much through your "ancient fathers" that it is nothing of what Judaism is. Mormons could be more greatly considered to have a link to Judaism than any sect of Christianity today. St. Augustine once wrote: "Why wonder that you do not understand? For if you understand, it is not God." What he was getting at with that is the difficulty and ultimately the impossibility of really knowing God completely in this life. If you think that you know him or that it should be easy to understand his ways, his teachings his being (I’m not saying that you do, although it seems that way) then you are guilty of hubris. God is all, we are not, we are finite and we live in a finite physical world. If you put down the Book of Mormon and just concentrate on the bible than you will come to realize this and see the wisdom in what Augustine was getting at. The same sentiments are expressed by Job: Job 9: 7-14 7 Who commands the sun, and it rises not: and shuts up the stars, as it were, under a seal: 8 Who alone spreads out the heavens, and walks upon the waves of the sea, 9 who makes Arcturus, and Orion, and Hyades, and the inner parts of the south. 10 Who does things great and incomprehensible, and wonderful, of which there is no number. 11 If he come to me, I shall not see him: if he depart, I shall not understand.12 If he examine on a sudden, who shall answer him? Or who can say: Why do you so? 13 God, whose wrath no man can resist, and under whom they stoop that bear up the world.14 What am I then, that I should answer him, and have words with him? 15 I, who although I should have any just thing, would not answer, but would make supplication to my judge.That being said, we do have the bible, we can make sense of what God wants and allows us to make sense of but it is very clear in the bible that God is on many levels unknowable. You try to bring him down to your level but that’s blasphemy God is not man, God never was man, it’s never even remotely suggested in the bible and to add to that every time man tries to approach him (Adam and eve in the Garden, and the tower of babel are two great examples) God gets angry and puts us in our place. With that being true, since it is in the bible, how can what you recognize in God be an actuality? It isn’t and like I said before you’d have to step away from the teachings of Joseph Smith and read the inspired word of God in the bible to even have a chance at seeing this. As for Jesus praying to the father…well like Mazuac already pointed out, Jesus was on earth as a man, he related to us as such, taught us as such, there was that human element to him. Would it make more sense for him to tell everyone to pray to him? They would have laughed in his face. The whole point of his being here was to save us and he led us by example. Then again, we know that God does things “great and incomprehensible” so how perfectly should we understand this? You seem to think that we should know all completely, but we aren’t God. You can’t really talk about the Church fathers adding to the bible when your church introduced and entire new book that is to be recognized as equal if not better than the bible… The point is that that bible verse didn’t add on at all, the only conclusion you could come to is that they are one God, they are all spoken of in completely equal terms, they all give testimony in heaven, one doesn’t give more than the other and “they are one.” It describes God’s being as he described himself as “I am”. The last part of your post where you referenced something I said earlier, it wasn’t in response to Judaism, I was speaking of the early Christians at that point. Mormonism is a 19th century religion; there are no immediate connections to Judaism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 12:34 pm
Semiremis The entire bible contradicts what the Mormon Church claims on a lot of the major topics, have you ever tried to put the book of Mormon down, forget about what it says for a bit, forget about what Joseph Smith says and just read. You'll find a completely different story than what Smith came up with. No it doesn't. I was once a protestant and I even attended Catholic mass for a short period in my life, and Joseph Smith's "story" makes a heck of a lot more sense and fits closer to the Bible then any protestant church that I ever set foot in did. And I will not put down the Book of Mormon, because it does, in fact, go hand in hand with the Bible. @ Mazuac- And you call us "mormons" like it's some dirty curse word. Maybe that's just way I am interpreting it, but we really are no different than protestants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 1:04 pm
mazuac It seems to me, that you Mormons do not understand the concept that God does not need a physical body to be seen, felt, or herd. Furthermore, God does not have to be withing the physical universe to affect our world. Us Mormons do not put God in any physical body or put Him in any such various form, we just know that He has a body of flesh and bone and we know Heavenly Father and Christ are two separate individuals. Nothing more, nothing less. Quote: Also, the Trinity makes absolute sense to me, and to most Christians. only because you find the illogical to be logical in such a statement, for you state that only illogical must be God, only unknowable must be Godly, and only unrecognizable must be holy. Quote: I don't understand how, after reading the New Testament, one can honestly beleive that God is the Father, Jesus is simply His Son, and the Holy Spirit is some other benevolent spirit. Easy, you should try it. Quote: Throughout the New Testament, the equalities between God being the Son, Father and Holy Spirit is abundantly clear. Prove it instead of just saying it. Quote: Further, if they were not equal, and one, then the Bible would contradict itself, discrediting it. They are equal and one. Have I not said that, oh yes, I have in the last post. Quote: For instance, when Jesus asserts He is "Lord over the Sabbath" that is one way of saying, I created the Sabbath and therefore am Lord over it. Yet, God created the Sabbath, so what is Jesus asserting? (Just one of the many examples). lol, Lord and Father are two different things, pay attention, kind of like how Lord and King are two different things. Quote: Further, "not my will but my father's" can be asserted to the fact that Jesus did have human emotion, feeling and temptations. You realize that makes no sense? That is ludicrous, because yet He wept for us, and now He doesn't have feelings or emotions? Quote: Therefore, Jesus is asserting his fact that not the human will, to preserve one's life, but the Godly will, to lay His life down for mankind and be the bridge between humanity and knowing a PERSONAL God. You don't have a PERSONAL God, you have someone unknowable so He cannot be personal. You pray to an idol, for that is your god, without emotion and without regard. He cares for nothing but proving he is god in your sense of the trinity. He is impossible and unrecognizable and cares for nothing of the people here but only for those to believe in him. Quote: What Semiremis was getting at when she said "Not once in that faith, in sacred scripture or tradition is there any shred of evidence at all suggesting that Jesus is a God separate from the father." Because they only believe in one God, and it is easy when you don't believe in a Saviour to begin with. You still are not proving anything. Quote: Is that the Bible asserts there is one God, and it never asserts there is but the Father, then the Son being a minor deity, and then the Holy Spirit being another powerful spirit. At least that is what it seems like to me, I could be wrong. The Son is not a minor deity, do not blasphemy or even speak of my Saviour like that. I will quit this guild if you blasphemy my Lord and Saviour again. Quote: Further, no matter how much you want to beleive that, it doesn't matter. Christianity is a stem from Judaism. Was not Jesus Jewish? Yes, he was. Was not Jesus a Jew, and do we not follow the teachings of Jesus? Then, obviously, it is a "stem" from Judaism. I would enjoy to see you stand up to in medias saying that. Christianity is nothing compared to Judaism. Judiasm has rules, laws, ordinances, covenants, all you believe is that you believe and you are saved. You don't even have to show up to church.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 1:17 pm
Quote: St. Augustine once wrote: "Why wonder that you do not understand? For if you understand, it is not God." What he was getting at with that is the difficulty and ultimately the impossibility of really knowing God completely in this life. If you think that you know him or that it should be easy to understand his ways, his teachings his being (I’m not saying that you do, although it seems that way) then you are guilty of hubris. God is all, we are not, we are finite and we live in a finite physical world. If you put down the Book of Mormon and just concentrate on the bible than you will come to realize this and see the wisdom in what Augustine was getting at. He is not my Lord and Saviour, so I doth not care what He states for your sake of argument. If you want to persuade me, use scripture, ah yes, you did, above statement disregarded and onward to more useful conjecture. Quote: The same sentiments are expressed by Job: Job 9: 7-14 7 Who commands the sun, and it rises not: and shuts up the stars, as it were, under a seal: 8 Who alone spreads out the heavens, and walks upon the waves of the sea, 9 who makes Arcturus, and Orion, and Hyades, and the inner parts of the south. 10 Who does things great and incomprehensible, and wonderful, of which there is no number. 11 If he come to me, I shall not see him: if he depart, I shall not understand.12 If he examine on a sudden, who shall answer him? Or who can say: Why do you so? 13 God, whose wrath no man can resist, and under whom they stoop that bear up the world.14 What am I then, that I should answer him, and have words with him? 15 I, who although I should have any just thing, would not answer, but would make supplication to my judge.I know God is unknowable in the sense that He does mighty works that I cannot comprehend, but He still is my Father, whom I look like, and we feel together, and work together to find resolutions. I can know Him on a personal level like two individuals resolving a problem. He does not have to be an incomprehensible being to do that. Quote: That being said, we do have the bible, we can make sense of what God wants and allows us to make sense of but it is very clear in the bible that God is on many levels unknowable. I just said yes, now what? Quote: You try to bring him down to your level but that’s blasphemy God is not man, God never was man, it’s never even remotely suggested in the bible and to add to that every time man tries to approach him I do not do anything of the sort to God, I just say what He is, and I do not force Him anywhere. Quote: (Adam and eve in the Garden, and the tower of babel are two great examples) You blame Adam for everything in life, I suppose for even this argument Adam would be brought up again. Quote: God gets angry and puts us in our place. And how does this relate to any argument? If he puts me in my place, then why does he lead me further towards the temple, and covenants made therein? Quote: With that being true, since it is in the bible, how can what you recognize in God be an actuality? Because, it's in the Bible. Quote: It isn’t and like I said before you’d have to step away from the teachings of Joseph Smith and read the inspired word of God in the bible to even have a chance at seeing this. I have read the inspired word of God, maybe you should read it sometime, and gain your own opinion instead of listening to the half truths of a pastor/priest. Quote: As for Jesus praying to the father…well like Mazuac already pointed out, Jesus was on earth as a man, he related to us as such, taught us as such, there was that human element to him. But you just said that that is blasphemy, you make no SENSE! Quote: Would it make more sense for him to tell everyone to pray to him? They would have laughed in his face. Man already did, for He called Himself the Son of God. I think the apostles would have followed Him even more so if He said He was God. He wasn't trying to earn brownie points, He was trying to be a Saviour and do a job that no one else could. Quote: The whole point of his being here was to save us and he led us by example. He very well could have said, I'm God, so listen up, just as well as He said, I'm the Son of the Father, so listen up. Quote: Then again, we know that God does things “great and incomprehensible” so how perfectly should we understand this? You seem to think that we should know all completely, but we aren’t God. Never said anything about knowing everything, but we should know how our own Father operates in our lives, instead of making up stories. Quote: You can’t really talk about the Church fathers adding to the bible when your church introduced and entire new book that is to be recognized as equal if not better than the bible… My church has not added anything to the Bible. We never made a book. We never added a book. I have no idea where you are coming up with this. Quote: The point is that that bible verse didn’t add on at all, the only conclusion you could come to is that they are one God, they are all spoken of in completely equal terms, they all give testimony in heaven, one doesn’t give more than the other and “they are one.” It describes God’s being as he described himself as “I am”. Still makes no sense at all. Quote: The last part of your post where you referenced something I said earlier, it wasn’t in response to Judaism, I was speaking of the early Christians at that point. You should be clearer in your posts then, it was very easy to misinterpret. Mormonism is a 19th century religion; there are no immediate connections to Judaism. Catholicsm is a 4th century religion, and no connection to Judaism or Christianity in general.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 9:43 am
Someoneiknow is in bold. There is a lot that I didn't get into which I'd like to later expand on but I ran out of time, I have to head to work.
He is not my Lord and Saviour, so I doth not care what He states for your sake of argument. If you want to persuade me, use scripture, ah yes, you did, above statement disregarded and onward to more useful conjecture
Neither is Elder Holland yet you started a post on something he wrote which turned out to be false, misleading and possibly a willful lie but we can give him the benefit of the doubt and just say that he doesn’t know his history on Christianity when it comes to the development of the doctrine on the trinity. I’m not sure why you tell me to use scripture since I already did and you know that I did because you commented on it next. In any case, Augustine is one of the most well known if not the most well known Christian theologian. He has a lot to say and in my opinion as well as most other Christians out there it’s worth reading.
Case in point, I’m up for just discussing the bible but don’t ask me to in a post that you started that came from an extra biblical source.
I know God is unknowable in the sense that He does mighty works that I cannot comprehend, but He still is my Father, whom I look like, and we feel together, and work together to find resolutions. I can know Him on a personal level like two individuals resolving a problem. He does not have to be an incomprehensible being to do that.
So you do agree that we don’t know everything about God, and that there is a great deal of mystery surrounding him? That’s all I was getting at because you seem to think that if something isn’t completely clear to you about God than that automatically makes it false which would be completely irrational when it comes to a being that is great, omniscient and omnipotent.
I do not do anything of the sort to God, I just say what He is, and I do not force Him anywhere.
Maybe I’m mistaken about what the Mormon Church teaches than but I thought you believed God was once like us and that we all can in the future become like him in regards to his omniscience and omnipotence, that we could become deified. I’m wrong there? If I’m not than what you are doing is bringing him down to your level, you are not saying what he is because no where in the bible does it say God was once like us in terms of our frailities.
You blame Adam for everything in life, I suppose for even this argument Adam would be brought up again.
No I don’t and this isn’t about Adams sin it’s about how God reacts when we try to approach him on level playing ground, he doesn’t take too kindly to it and Adam and eve isn’t the only example of this and it’s not the only one I used.
And how does this relate to any argument? If he puts me in my place, then why does he lead me further towards the temple, and covenants made therein?
It relates to the argument because it’s the result of what happens when we try to make ourselves like God in the more literal sense. I thought Mormons believed that we could literally become like God, isn’t that in the doctrine on deification?
I have read the inspired word of God, maybe you should read it sometime, and gain your own opinion instead of listening to the half truths of a pastor/priest.
The book of mormon isn’t the inspired word of God, I stick to the bible and I don’t remember once having posted anything coming from a pastor or priest although somewhere down the line I might if I find something of value that’s worth sharing. Remember you are the one that started this post with a message from Elder Holland…
But you just said that that is blasphemy, you make no SENSE!
No I didn’t but if you don’t understand what I’m getting at because I didn’t make it clear enough than feel free to ask me to elaborate. God willfully becoming man to save us is different from us trying to become Gods.
Man already did, for He called Himself the Son of God. I think the apostles would have followed Him even more so if He said He was God. He wasn't trying to earn brownie points, He was trying to be a Saviour and do a job that no one else could.
Yes but he was working within human limitations. It may seem perfectly simple to you but imagine it from a different perspective, take dog training for example…humans have to work within the limitations of the animal otherwise it wouldn’t understand. Throughout the bible you can see this progression of giving us greater awareness of God and his plan.
He very well could have said, I'm God, so listen up, just as well as He said, I'm the Son of the Father, so listen up.
He could have snapped his fingers and gave all a perfect understanding but he didn’t, God has his ways and I trust him.
My church has not added anything to the Bible. We never made a book. We never added a book. I have no idea where you are coming up with this
You don’t think the book of Mormon is of God than? That would be adding onto God’s word with another “holy” text. That’s what I was getting at.
Still makes no sense at all.
Well it’s all in the bible.
You should be clearer in your posts then, it was very easy to misinterpret.
The proceeding statement was in reference to Christianity, even without that it should have been clear enough when I had said that the Jews don’t recognize Christ as their messiah.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 10:53 am
Heavenly Father's beginning isn't some thing we really worry about because it's not important for our salvation. Now I know that a member of the Church in the past stated that God once was as we are now. That very well could have been his speculation, a guess, a theory, etc. He is no longer a live for me to ask him what he meant by that statement.
As for the Book of Mormon being the word of God, I believe it is. There is evidence to support it and the Bible is also the word of God. Also the Bible does not prohibit future or modern revelation. It doesn't say that revelation has come to an end or that it is the be all, end all word of God either. And the Book of Mormon is not an addition to the Bible. It's a completely separate book of scripture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
