Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Incoherency of Mainstream Christology


Sargon

Recommended Posts

Why would anyone go to a church that does not even claim to be true?

Yes, the "one true church" exists. If they do not claim to be the one true church, what exactly are they claiming to be - one of the others?

CHURCH, SIGNS OF THE TRUE. See also Church of Jesus Christ; Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, The; Sign

Doctrines and works of a Church that show it is approved by God and is the means the Lord has established for his children to gain the fulness of his blessings. Some of the signs of the true Church are as follows:

Correct understanding of the Godhead: God created man in his own image, Gen. 1:26â??27. The Lord spoke unto Moses face to face, Ex. 33:11. Eternal life is to know God the Father and Jesus Christ, John 17:3. The Father and Son have bodies of flesh and bones, D&C 130:22â??23. The Father and the Son appeared to Joseph Smith, JS-H 1:15â??20. We believe in God, the Eternal Father, A of F 1:1.

First principles and ordinances: Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, John 3:3â??5. Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, Acts 2:38. Then they laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost, Acts 8:14â??17. Become children of God by faith in Jesus Christ, Gal. 3:26â??27. Repent ye, and be baptized in the name of my Beloved Son, 2 Ne. 31:11â??21. They who believed were baptized and received the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, D&C 76:50â??53. Proper priesthood is needed to baptize and to give the gift of the Holy Ghost, JS-H 1:70â??72. The first principles and ordinances of the gospel are described, A of F 1:4.

Revelation: Where there is no vision, the people perish, Prov. 29:18. The Lord reveals his secrets to his prophets, Amos 3:7. The Church is built upon the rock of revelation, Matt. 16:17â??18 (D&C 33:13). Woe unto him who shall say the Lord no longer worketh by revelation, 3 Ne. 29:6. Revelations and commandments come only through the one appointed, D&C 43:2â??7. We believe all that God has revealed, A of F 1:9.

Prophets: The Church is built upon the foundation of Apostles and prophets, Eph. 2:19â??20. Apostles and prophets are essential to the Church, Eph. 4:11â??16. Joseph Smith was called to be a seer, prophet, and Apostle, D&C 21:1â??3. We believe in prophets, A of F 1:6.

Authority: Jesus gave his disciples power and authority, Luke 9:1â??2 (John 15:16). Nephi, the son of Helaman, had great authority from God, Hel. 11:18 (3 Ne. 7:17). The prophet is to receive commandments for the Church, D&C 21:4â??5. No one may preach the gospel or build up the Church unless he is ordained by someone who has authority, D&C 42:11. The elders are to preach the gospel, acting in authority, D&C 68:8. Any who preach or administer for God must be called of God by those in authority, A of F 1:5.

Additional scriptures to come forth: The stick of Judah will be joined with the stick of Joseph, Ezek. 37:15â??20. The coming forth of latter-day scripture was foretold, 1 Ne. 13:38â??41. We believe that God will yet reveal many great and important things, A of F 1:9.

Church organization: The Church is built upon the foundation of Apostles and prophets, Eph. 2:19â??20. Apostles and prophets are essential to the Church, Eph. 4:11â??16. Christ is the head of the Church, Eph. 5:23. Christ's Church must be called in his name, 3 Ne. 27:8. We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, A of F 1:6.

Missionary work: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, Matt. 28:19â??20. Seventy were called to preach the gospel, Luke 10:1. They were desirous that salvation should be declared to every creature, Mosiah 28:3. Elders are to go forth, preaching my gospel, two by two, D&C 42:6. The gospel must be preached unto every creature, D&C 58:64.

Spiritual gifts: They began to speak with other tongues, Acts 2:4. The elders are to heal the sick, James 5:14. Deny not the gifts of God, Moro. 10:8. Spiritual gifts are listed, D&C 46:13â??26 (1 Cor. 12:1â??11; Moro. 10:9â??18).

Temples: I will make a covenant and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them forevermore, Ezek. 37:26â??27. The Lord shall suddenly come to his temple, Mal. 3:1. Nephi built a temple, 2 Ne. 5:16. The Saints were chastened for failing to build the house of the Lord, D&C 95 (D&C 88:119). The Lord's people always build temples for the performance of holy ordinances, D&C 124:37â??44. Building temples and performing ordinances are parts of the great latter-day work, D&C 138:53â??54.

(Guide to the Scriptures | C Church, Signs of the True.:Entry - Temples)

Link to comment

I just had a FB chat in which, by the end of the chat, this is how God was defined:

Definition of god by the majority of the Christian faiths.

An abstract, unknown, immaterial spirit, that fills the immensity of space and is everywhere and nowhere in particular present, philosophical thought experiment, whose revelation has ceased, prophets and apostles are no more, inspired only one book â?? the Bible, deals with no other people on the Earth except the Jews, damns to hell all who do not believe (whether or not they had the chance to learn of Him in this life or not), does not care what works you do, creator of everything â?? including Satan and evil, whose purpose in creation is to obtain a horde of inferior groveling slaves to eternally worship Himâ?¦ Schizophrenic 3 in one being who prays to Himself crying â??not my willâ?¦ but my other willâ?¦ be done.â?

How would your enemy describe you to others as? The above description of God was authored by the Devil.

Such a convoluted warped picture of who God is, I don't even know where to start.... :P and this is who the majority of Christians think God is???? sad.

No, that is not who the "majority" of Christians believe God is. I can also say that because as a member of the Catholic Church, which is the largest Christian Church, we do not believe that.

I would need to see evidence that this is what mainstream Christians believe, and unfortunately not a Facebook conversation, no offense.

Link to comment
we also know that Jesus did not pray to Himself.

well, that is a relief, although you still seem to be contradicting yourself.

Are They:

"three separate, distinct Persons (not one Person)"???

or are They:

"one in substance/being/essence/whatever you want to call it"

They are either "one being" or They are "three beings" - not both. an apple or an orange, one or the other.

Do you agree with the following?

Our first and foremost article of faith in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is â??We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.â?2 We believe these three divine persons constituting a single Godhead are united in purpose, in manner, in testimony, in mission. We believe Them to be filled with the same godly sense of mercy and love, justice and grace, patience, forgiveness, and redemption. I think it is accurate to say we believe They are one in every significant and eternal aspect imaginable except believing Them to be three persons combined in one substance, a Trinitarian notion never set forth in the scriptures because it is not true.

http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=d2552bce258f5110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

Link to comment

No, that is not who the "majority" of Christians believe God is. I can also say that because as a member of the Catholic Church, which is the largest Christian Church, we do not believe that.

I would need to see evidence that this is what mainstream Christians believe, and unfortunately not a Facebook conversation, no offense.

take it line by line, and fix it then.

You believe in a closed cannon right? no more revelations, no more scriptures, right?

You believe there are no more prophets/apostles right?

You believe God created Satan right?

You believe man was created to worship God right? That we will always be inferior to God?

You think God is immaterial - not a physical being, that we are not created in His image right?

Link to comment

I think there is a difference in saying "I don't understand the Trinity" and "I don't fully understand the Trinity".

I agree. And I can only speak from my own experience here, but I'm not convinced that most people just fail to understand it "fully." It seems to me that many, if not most, are failing to understand it at its most basic level. I've had numerous people try to explain it to me, but none were able to explain it in terms that I could understand it. And none were able to convince me that they themselves understood it. In fact, many admitted that they did not.

I've had several people attempt to explain it, but end up explaining Modalism instead.

I think that those that say that LDS are not Christians because of the difference in theology on God say this based on what they know (or think they know) about the Trinity, and see what they "know" as contradicting what LDS "know" about God. I have never seen someone say "we can't comprehend God" in response to someone asking them to explain their view of God.
I have. In my experience, virtually all explanations of the Trinity eventually break down and become "we can't comprehend God."
I personally believe that LDS are Christians in that we all believe in and worship Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior.
I appreciate that, and I agree.
The "not Christian" part comes up when you add to that definition,
Yes. And in that case, we have departed from the standard English dictionary in favor of some private jargon. People are, of course, free to do so, but in my experience it leads more to confusion than to understanding. In some cases, I am convinced, the confusion is even deliberate.
This is why the Catholic Church does not accept LDS baptism. Of course, that is for a different thread. :P
Which I don't have a problem with. Catholics are free to do whatever they feel is right. And they are well within their rights to make that judgment. Doing so does not further any kind of misunderstanding about Mormonism. But when someone publicly says "Mormons are not Christian," well, that's a different story.
Link to comment

well, that is a relief, although you still seem to be contradicting yourself.

Are They:

"three separate, distinct Persons (not one Person)"???

or are They:

"one in substance/being/essence/whatever you want to call it"

They are either "one being" or They are "three beings" - not both. an apple or an orange, one or the other.

Do you agree with the following?

Please see my water analogy above. They are three separate and distinct Persons that are one in substance, will, intent, purpose, etc. It is not an "either/or" for us, nor is it contradicting if you see my water analogy. An apple and an orange are not made up of the same substance. Again, see the water analogy then you will understand a little more about it.

I have seen that statement before, and the erroneous part is that we do not believe that they are three Persons "combined" in one substance. That is not what the Trinity means. They are not "combined" in one substance, they are one substance. Again, see the water example.

Link to comment

Please see my water analogy above. They are three separate and distinct Persons that are one in substance, will, intent, purpose, etc. It is not an "either/or" for us, nor is it contradicting if you see my water analogy. An apple and an orange are not made up of the same substance. Again, see the water analogy then you will understand a little more about it.

I have seen that statement before, and the erroneous part is that we do not believe that they are three Persons "combined" in one substance. That is not what the Trinity means. They are not "combined" in one substance, they are one substance. Again, see the water example.

so... that is like saying my husband, and I, and our kids are all made out of flesh and blood and bone - (not out of iron, or wood etc. etc.) so we are all made out of the same substance? Even though we are made out of the same carbon based substance, we are totally 100% different distinct people. Is that what you are saying?

God and Jesus are both flesh and bone beings - they are made out of the same substance. The Holy Spirit is a different substance though, just spirit, no body.

Speaking of the Godhead - do you mean

1.) they are each "made out of" the same substance

or

2.) they are each the same substance

1 and 2 are very different statements.

I agree, God and Jesus are made out of the same substance, as my husband and I are made out of the same substance. We are not "one being" though. We are separate, distinct Persons.

Link to comment

take it line by line, and fix it then.

You believe in a closed cannon right? no more revelations, no more scriptures, right?

You believe there are no more prophets/apostles right?

You believe God created Satan right?

You believe man was created to worship God right? That we will always be inferior to God?

You think God is immaterial - not a physical being, that we are not created in His image right?

I am not going to go line by line on a Facebook statement and correct it. If you would like the basic explanation of the Catholic understanding of the Trinity, that is freely available online in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You can read that online.

http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/

-Yes, we believe in a closed canon. The Bible is complete, we do not need any more scriptures. People can and do have personal revelations. However there is no more new revelation binding on the entire Church. What we do have is something called "doctrinal development". As time goes on, we come to more fully understand the doctrines that have been given. We believe that this doctrinal development is evident throughout history, especially in the face of heresy, hence the need for Ecumenical Councils to fully define the Faith in opposition to heresy.

-There are no more prophets and apostles. Many can and do have the gift of prophecy. However we do not have an office of "prophet". There are no more Apostles, as in the Twelve, because we believe that certain requirements were set to be a member of the Twelve Apostles, and no one today can fit those requirements. We do believe that the bishops are successors to the apostles, however the are not apostles themselves.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0107bt.asp

-Yes, God created Satan, as well as all the other angels.

-We believe that ultimately, man will come to be partakers in the Divine nature, co-heirs in Christ. We will never be equal to God in every aspect. We can become more like what God is by nature through Jesus Christ. This is called theosis or sanctification.

-God the Father does not have a body of flesh and bones in Catholic theology. Jesus incarnated on Earth, and He ascended bodily to Heaven. Thus, Jesus is not only consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit, but consubtantial with us humans (as I am consubstantial with you). We are created in His image in various ways, but not a physical image.

Link to comment

No it is not "three different states of one substance dwelling at the same time in the same person". That is something called "modalism" or sabellianism.

No, it's not. Modalism is the idea that each member of the Trinity is a different manifestation of one God, not that they are three different "persons" (I used "states") dwelling fully in one God (I used "person"). I've never agreed with the nomenclature used in the early councils. I believe it is irrelevant semantic gymnastics. As I pointed out earlier, water, steam, and ice cannot simultaneously describe the state of the one substance, which actually brings your analogy closer to Modalism than my explanation.

I will give the Catholic understanding, however I believe it is common among those that believe in the Trinity. It is that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate, distinct Persons (not one Person). They are as separate as I am from you. We see this at Jesus' baptism, and we also know that Jesus did not pray to Himself. He prayed to the Father, as they are separate Persons. However, they are also "one in substance/being/essence/whatever you want to call it". This is what is meant by "consubstantial". In the water example, I use "H2O" as the substance".

It is not correct that the understanding of the water analogy is "ice one minute and water the next minute, but the same molecules throughout". The analogy I gave is this-there is a cup of water on the table. There is also a bowl of ice on the table as well. There is also water vapor in the air. Each of these is separate (of course) and distinct. Yet, they all are the same substance, i.e. H2O. Imagine that this is a "system" (from chemistry and physics). The system is at equilibrium, therefore there is no change of state of any of the things that are in the bowl, cup, or in the air. That is what the Trinity is, as far as consubstantial goes. It is incorrect to say that it is three different states in the same person, if for anything because we believe there are Three Persons, not one.

But you're "dividing the substance" into three different cups. I've stated this several times, and you've not responded with anything other than "Nu-uh!"

Link to comment
I will give the Catholic understanding, however I believe it is common among those that believe in the Trinity. It is that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate, distinct Persons (not one Person). They are as separate as I am from you. We see this at Jesus' baptism, and we also know that Jesus did not pray to Himself. He prayed to the Father, as they are separate Persons. However, they are also "one in substance/being/essence/whatever you want to call it". This is what is meant by "consubstantial".
And this is my fundamental problem with all explanations of the Trinity.

"One in substance/being/essence/whatever you want to call it." What does that mean?

"One in substance." Does that mean that they are made out of the same material? The same kind of material?

"One in being." How is that different from saying "one being" or "one person"? What is the difference between a person and a being?

"One in essence." Does this mean they have similar attributes? They are essentially the same?

"Whatever you want to call it." I don't really care what we call it. I want to know what it means. It seems like we're missing a definition here that would make this whole thing actually say something. Without that definition, though, we're just talking, without saying anything.

It's like saying:

God is very frabjulous. It doesn't matter what frabjulous means, and we can call it something else if you want. But you agree that God is very frabjulous, right?

Link to comment

I agree. And I can only speak from my own experience here, but I'm not convinced that most people just fail to understand it "fully." It seems to me that many, if not most, are failing to understand it at its most basic level. I've had numerous people try to explain it to me, but none were able to explain it in terms that I could understand it. And none were able to convince me that they themselves understood it. In fact, many admitted that they did not.

I've had several people attempt to explain it, but end up explaining Modalism instead.

Yep, definitely. many people, including the ones that apparently believe in the Trinity, descend into Modalism.

I have. In my experience, virtually all explanations of the Trinity eventually break down and become "we can't comprehend God."

I think the key to this is "eventually". I would not say that someone would begin the argument with that. Ultimately, we cannot fully comprehend God in this life. We cannot use our human brains to comprehend the Eternal. We will be able to in the afterlife however. This is called the "beatific vision".

I appreciate that, and I agree.

Yes. And in that case, we have departed from the standard English dictionary in favor of some private jargon. People are, of course, free to do so, but in my experience it leads more to confusion than to understanding. In some cases, I am convinced, the confusion is even deliberate.

Agreed. There are MANY definitions on what Christian means sadly.

Which I don't have a problem with. Catholics are free to do whatever they feel is right. And they are well within their rights to make that judgment. Doing so does not further any kind of misunderstanding about Mormonism. But when someone publicly says "Mormons are not Christian," well, that's a different story.

I agree. And people need to define what it means to be a Christian, and acknowledge that not everyone has the same definition, and just accept that.

Link to comment

so... that is like saying my husband, and I, and our kids are all made out of flesh and blood and bone - (not out of iron, or wood etc. etc.) so we are all made out of the same substance? Even though we are made out of the same carbon based substance, we are totally 100% different distinct people. Is that what you are saying?

Yes, that is basically it.

God and Jesus are both flesh and bone beings - they are made out of the same substance. The Holy Spirit is a different substance though, just spirit, no body.

Yes, if we use the LDS belief as an analogy.

Speaking of the Godhead - do you mean

1.) they are each "made out of" the same substance

or

2.) they are each the same substance

1 and 2 are very different statements.

I agree, God and Jesus are made out of the same substance, as my husband and I are made out of the same substance. We are not "one being" though. We are separate, distinct Persons.

Number one approaches it, however the problem word of course is "made". As ice, water, and vapor are the same substance (H2O), yet distinct (in my above example), so too are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit one in substance. That oneness doesn't take away from their distinctness, anymore than the oneness of the molecules H2O in the ice, water, and vapor take away from their being distinct phases (and here, remember that my example is that there is water in a cup, ice in a bowl, and vapor in the air, all in the same closed system.

Link to comment

I'll reply to at least this one, then I have to run... Thanks for sharing your beliefs!

-God the Father does not have a body of flesh and bones in Catholic theology. Jesus incarnated on Earth, and He ascended bodily to Heaven. Thus, Jesus is not only consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit, but consubtantial with us humans (as I am consubstantial with you). We are created in His image in various ways, but not a physical image.

“immaterial nothingness corporeal without substance” ???

vs.

God is a physical flesh and bone being not immaterial, not without substance, not a nothing, a something

who (contrary to “The Shack”) does look a little like Gandalf :P

Gen. 1:27 (Moses 2:27) God created man in his own image

Gen. 5:1 God created man, in the likeness of God made he him

Gen. 9:6 in the image of God made he man

John 14:9 he that hath seen me hath seen the Father

2 Cor. 4:4 Christ, who is the image of God

James 3:9 men which are made after the similitude of God

Heb. 1:3 the express image of his person

Philip. 3:21 our vile body ... fashioned like unto his glorious body

God has a face, feet, fingers, mouth, back, flesh and bones, hands, striking family resemblance between God and His Son.

Gen. 32:30 I have seen God face to face

Ex. 24:10 they saw the God of Israel, there was under his feet

Ex. 31:18 (Deut. 9:10) written with the finger of God

Ex. 33:23 thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen

Num. 12:8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth

Luke 24:39 for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have

Acts 7:56 the Son of man standing on the right hand of God

(Topical Guide | G God, Body of—Corporeal Nature:Entry)

reminds me of my cousin, when he was little he had an immaterial, invisible, imaginary friend – forget what this friend’s name was. Wish I could remember ;)

God is not an immaterial, invisible, imaginary being. He is a physical real being, whom many have seen.

Link to comment

Well, that is a complicated question. For Catholics, we of course believe that we are right, as in, teaching all of the true doctrines. Therefore, we would believe that non-Catholics have either added or deleted something, causing them to not be "right" on various issues. In that, we believe that "apostolic succession" is important in determining who is right. Apostolic succession is not just tracing back the bishops to the Apostles. It is also about the continuance of doctrine. Thus, one can trace their bishops somehow back to the Apostles, yet some addition or subtraction of doctrine causes the succession to break. One example of this is with Anglicans that allow the ordination of women. Because of that (among other reasons), there is a break in apostolic succession. We believe that this is related to the sacraments, and the ability to "validly" give the sacraments. Another example is the Orthodox Church. They separated from the Catholic Church (or, more objectively, we separated from each other). However, they have not added or deleted any doctrines (they remain somewhat static in doctrinal development), and because of that, the Catholic Church believes that the Orthodox have valid apostolic succession, hence a valid priesthood and sacraments. This is a complicated issue that probably isn't for this thread, but I hope that gives an example.

So, for Catholics, in non-LDS Christianity, we hold the Catholic Church as the standard. Other groups have departed from it on various doctrines, however they are also "right" in many regards. This is the same with our view on the LDS Church (with the Trinity being a big issue of difference, as it is with Jehovah's Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals, etc). And you will see that each group believes the same things about themselves, otherwise they would not exist! As universalist as a group may be, they still believe that they have something, even if it is just one thing, more "right" than the other groups, otherwise they wouldn't exist.

Again, this is why I appreciate Catholics. I feel we have a lot in common. I don't agree with your doctrine, but at the same time, I understand how you think. We can both claim to be the one true religion, w/o feeling that we have dealt a major insult to the rest of the world's religions. IMO, all religions should be claiming the same thing! I admire you for it. You also have one central voice: the Pope, and see the importance of lines of authority. I don't understand the division of orthodoxy and others, but hey, one can't have it all. Also you seem to hold firm to your laws, and don't appear to waiver and bend to society's trends. And you don't see Catholics starting up a new church on every corner, based on someone's personal opinion of doctrine.

As long as you really LIVE the beliefs of your religion, and are not just Catholic in name only, you have my full respect and admiration.

So I have no problem with Catholics. It's the rest of Christianity, the EVs and Protestants, that confuses me.

Link to comment

And this is my fundamental problem with all explanations of the Trinity.

"One in substance/being/essence/whatever you want to call it." What does that mean?

"One in substance." Does that mean that they are made out of the same material? The same kind of material?

Yes, they are "made" (a problem word) of the same material. In the water analogy, that material is "H2O"

"One in being." How is that different from saying "one being" or "one person"? What is the difference between a person and a being?

We are all human beings, yet we are all different persons. Some say "one being", however I see that as leading to an incorrect belief that being=person (which is a modern understanding). A more proper statement is "one in being" or "of one being", and this is how we recite the Nicene Creed. In the Catholic understanding, being", "substance" and "essence" all mean the same thing in this case, as in, what God is "made of", or, the H2O in the water analogy. It is what something is. This comes from the Greek "ousia", which is properly translated as "being", yet some also translate it as "substance" or "essence". So, this is an ontological argument as to what "beingness" is.

"One in essence." Does this mean they have similar attributes? They are essentially the same?

They are one in purpose, will, intent, as well as substance. Ousia is translated varyingly as being, substance, and essence. They all mean the same thing: what God is.

"Whatever you want to call it." I don't really care what we call it. I want to know what it means. It seems like we're missing a definition here that would make this whole thing actually say something. Without that definition, though, we're just talking, without saying anything.

It's like saying:

God is very frabjulous. It doesn't matter what frabjulous means, and we can call it something else if you want. But you agree that God is very frabjulous, right?

My point was that many people have a different word for the "stuff" that God is. We varyingly call it being, essence, and substance. In that they are the same being/essence/substance (as I am a human being, the same "stuff" as you), they are also different Persons, as I am a different person from you.

Link to comment

Again, this is why I appreciate Catholics. I feel we have a lot in common. I don't agree with your doctrine, but at the same time, I understand how you think. We can both claim to be the one true religion, w/o feeling that we have dealt a major insult to the rest of the world's religions. IMO, all religions should be claiming the same thing! I admire you for it. You also have one central voice: the Pope, and see the importance of lines of authority. I don't understand the division of orthodoxy and others, but hey, one can't have it all. Also you seem to hold firm to your laws, and don't appear to waiver and bend to society's trends. And you don't see Catholics starting up a new church on every corner, based on someone's personal opinion of doctrine.

As long as you really LIVE the beliefs of your religion, and are not just Catholic in name only, you have my full respect and admiration.

So I have no problem with Catholics. It's the rest of Christianity, the EVs and Protestants, that confuses me.

Thank you for that! I do agree that we have differences in doctrine, and the Catholic Church has bothered LDS at times, with the baptism issue as well as access to parish files for genealogy, however I appreciate that we have similar stances on authority, and we can and do work together on so many issues.

And yes, I have a very strong issue with Catholics that are Catholic in name. I'm sure you feel the same about LDS in name.

And yes, evangelicals are an interesting bunch. If I ever considered leaving Catholicism, I would consider Eastern Orthodoxy and the LDS Church before evangelicalism.

Link to comment

I'll reply to at least this one, then I have to run... Thanks for sharing your beliefs!

No problem! Just remember, always go to official sources for what others believe, as that quote from Facebook was very...off.

â??immaterial nothingness corporeal without substanceâ? ???

vs.

God is a physical flesh and bone being not immaterial, not without substance, not a nothing, a something

who (contrary to â??The Shackâ?) does look a little like Gandalf :P

Gen. 1:27 (Moses 2:27) God created man in his own image

Gen. 5:1 God created man, in the likeness of God made he him

Gen. 9:6 in the image of God made he man

John 14:9 he that hath seen me hath seen the Father

2 Cor. 4:4 Christ, who is the image of God

James 3:9 men which are made after the similitude of God

Heb. 1:3 the express image of his person

Philip. 3:21 our vile body ... fashioned like unto his glorious body

God has a face, feet, fingers, mouth, back, flesh and bones, hands, striking family resemblance between God and His Son.

Gen. 32:30 I have seen God face to face

Ex. 24:10 they saw the God of Israel, there was under his feet

Ex. 31:18 (Deut. 9:10) written with the finger of God

Ex. 33:23 thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen

Num. 12:8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth

Luke 24:39 for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have

Acts 7:56 the Son of man standing on the right hand of God

(Topical Guide | G God, Body ofâ??Corporeal Nature:Entry)

reminds me of my cousin, when he was little he had an immaterial, invisible, imaginary friend â?? forget what this friendâ??s name was. Wish I could remember ;)

God is not an immaterial, invisible, imaginary being. He is a physical real being, whom many have seen.

Catholics do not believe that God is "nothingness" or "without substance" (I admit I am a little confused with those terms). We believe that God is three real, distinct Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We believe that the Son incarnated on this earth, and was bodily resurrected. As far as the Bible verses listed, we believe that much of that points to a analogies to understanding and interacting with God. For example, many times we say that the Holy Spirit speaks to us. Does the Holy Spirit have a mouth? The image and likeness of God is also interpreted differently. Many may say that I am the image of my father. Do they always mean that I look like him? Not always. However, they may also say that I have the same temperament as him, a similar mindset, etc. That is more of the Catholic view of that. We also believe that many did indeed see God, Jesus Christ. And of course God certainly is not imaginary.

Link to comment

Changed said,

so... that is like saying my husband, and I, and our kids are all made out of flesh and blood and bone - (not out of iron, or wood etc. etc.) so we are all made out of the same substance? Even though we are made out of the same carbon based substance, we are totally 100% different distinct people. Is that what you are saying?

To wich you replied

Yes, that is basically it.

This is a great thread. I am glad we can discuss this civilly and learn from one another here. It is a great thing.

I have read quite a bit in this thread here and it seems as if you are describing what the LDS view of the Godhead is.

Consider what JS claimed

" 17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the otherThis is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!"

I see here that there is 2 separate and distinct personages who both have the substance of godliness, if you will.

I am curious to see what you think of this.

Link to comment

Consider what JS claimed

" 17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the otherâ??This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!"

I see here that there is 2 separate and distinct personages who both have the substance of godliness, if you will.

I am curious to see what you think of this.

We will keep the other versions of this scripture out of the equation for the moment.

The explanation given to me is that even though we 'see' two individuals, the correct understanding is that there still is only one Godhead. Is that correct?

Link to comment

We will keep the other versions of this scripture out of the equation for the moment.

The explanation given to me is that even though we 'see' two individuals, the correct understanding is that there still is only one Godhead. Is that correct?

Yes.

Link to comment

We will keep the other versions of this scripture out of the equation for the moment.

The explanation given to me is that even though we 'see' two individuals, the correct understanding is that there still is only one Godhead. Is that correct?

Yes this is correct even for the LDS view. The 3 make up one Godhead.

Link to comment

Changed said,

To wich you replied

This is a great thread. I am glad we can discuss this civilly and learn from one another here. It is a great thing.

I have read quite a bit in this thread here and it seems as if you are describing what the LDS view of the Godhead is.

Consider what JS claimed

" 17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the otherâ??This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!"

I see here that there is 2 separate and distinct personages who both have the substance of godliness, if you will.

I am curious to see what you think of this.

I agree that it is a great thread. We not only learn about other beliefs, but also learn more about our own (which I definitely am!).

Now, the LDS and traditional Trinity views are similar in many ways, when one correctly understands both, especially when we delete modalism or modalistic explanations from the equation. However, the main difference I see is in defining what we mean by "substance", and really what the substance is. From my understanding of LDS theology, God the Father and Jesus Christ both have bodies of flesh and bones, while the Holy Spirit does not. Also, the oneness of the members of the Godhead is one of will, purpose and intent, right? Catholics agree that they are one in all those ways. However, the oneness of substance goes beyond that, as I explained with the water analogy. So, if my understanding is correct, if I applied the Catholic understanding of "consubstantial" (or of the same substance) to the LDS Godhead, it would mean that the Father and the Son are consubstantial, since they both have bodies of flesh and bones, however the Holy Spirit is not consubstantial with them in this regard, since He has a spirit body, and not a glorified body of flesh and bones.

Now, as to Joseph Smith's First Vision, that gets a little more complex for me. When the Father and the Son came down to JS, were they also in Heaven/Celestial Kingdom? As in, did they leave the Celestial Kingdom to visit JS, or were they there as well? This may be beyond anything that has been written on this topic (or maybe I haven't read enough on it), but I think that's an interesting question as to how the Father and Son interacted with him. Now, I would agree with the First Vision portrayal, in that the Father and Son really are separate Persons, so that if they ever did appear together on Earth, they would really be seen as separate. Jesus' baptism is an example that I always refer to in this regard. The Athanasian Creed also makes this explicit: "For the Father is one person, the Son is another, and the Spirit is still another.".

So, the main difference I see in the LDS concept of the Godhead is that we disagree on whether the Father has a body of flesh and bones, as well as the origins of the Son (from my understanding, LDS believe that Jesus is the firstborn of the Father's spirit children, though that is so far back that the concept of "time" or "beginning" of Jesus is irrelevant. Perhaps someone could explain that better than me, haha).

Link to comment

Now, as to Joseph Smith's First Vision, that gets a little more complex for me. When the Father and the Son came down to JS, were they also in Heaven/Celestial Kingdom? As in, did they leave the Celestial Kingdom to visit JS, or were they there as well? This may be beyond anything that has been written on this topic (or maybe I haven't read enough on it), but I think that's an interesting question as to how the Father and Son interacted with him. Now, I would agree with the First Vision portrayal, in that the Father and Son really are separate Persons, so that if they ever did appear together on Earth, they would really be seen as separate. Jesus' baptism is an example that I always refer to in this regard. The Athanasian Creed also makes this explicit: "For the Father is one person, the Son is another, and the Spirit is still another.".

Yes, they would have come from the CK or hevean. In LDS thought hevean in the general sence of the word is the CK.

So, the main difference I see in the LDS concept of the Godhead is that we disagree on whether the Father has a body of flesh and bones, as well as the origins of the Son (from my understanding, LDS believe that Jesus is the firstborn of the Father's spirit children, though that is so far back that the concept of "time" or "beginning" of Jesus is irrelevant. Perhaps someone could explain that better than me, haha).

Well I can live with that.

Thank you for being candid in your responce. It is debatable weather the Father has a phsycial body and a point that I don't want to debate here.

It sounds as if you have a great understanding of LDS beliefs.

I have one other point for your consideration. Did Jesus ever loose his physical body? If this is the case do you use a biblical refrence for this thought? Thanks.

I will explaine once you have clarified your position.

Link to comment

I am curious about a response to my point about the water analogy dividing the substance.

Sorry, I missed your post among the multitude of others.

No, it's not. Modalism is the idea that each member of the Trinity is a different manifestation of one God, not that they are three different "persons" (I used "states") dwelling fully in one God (I used "person"). I've never agreed with the nomenclature used in the early councils. I believe it is irrelevant semantic gymnastics. As I pointed out earlier, water, steam, and ice cannot simultaneously describe the state of the one substance, which actually brings your analogy closer to Modalism than my explanation.

Actually, this is incorrect, because you are misinterpreting my water analogy, since it seems that others have correctly interpreting what I am presenting. It is not that water, steam, and ice are existing simultaneously in and of themselves. As I presented it, there is a table. On that table is a cup of water, a bowl of ice, and water vapor in the air. This is a closed system at equilibrium, which will account for any nit picking by saying that ice is melting and water is evaporating. What is the "one substance"? It is two hydrogen atoms and one water atom, or H2O. Therefore, we have three separate, distinct things on the table (water, ice, vapor), yet they all obviously are H2O. To put my example more explicitly, I have water coming out from the tap, ice in the freezer, and vapor coming out of the kettle. All three are obviously separate, yet they are the same substance, H2O.

In this regard, I see no way that my example is modalism. Also, we have to be clear on terms, since Trinitarians do not believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "states dwelling in one Person", as you put it earlier. This is closer to modalism than anything (with God having faces or "modes"). There are three Persons, one in substance. They are not three Persons dwelling in another Person.

But you're "dividing the substance" into three different cups. I've stated this several times, and you've not responded with anything other than "Nu-uh!"

The substance is not divided. To understand this analogy, we must also acknowledge that God does not have an origin, or a beginning. Therefore, in the water analogy, I did not pour water in a cup, etc. It was just there, in this system. Related to the Trinity, we believe that the Father is fully God, the Son is fully God, and the Holy Spirit is fully God. They are not 1/3 God each. Likewise, water is fully H2O, ice is fully H2O, and vapor is fully H2O. When Jesus incarnated on Earth, He was not 1/2 God, and 1/3 of God was not present on earth. Jesus was literally God on earth, not partly God on earth, emphasizing the fullness of Divinity in Him.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...