246 replies to this topic

[mfbukowski]

Hick Preacher, on 14 December 2010 - 01:35 PM, said:

Even the Roman Catholics think so-- the 'Same/One Substance' phrase in more current versions read   "one being".

http://en.wikipedia...._in_current_use

Whatever that is supposed to mean.  Call it substance or being it is all just jibberish.

In fact it is what Nietzsche correctly pointed out as what he called a "virtus dormitiva" which you can google if you like.

When you can't explain something, you dream up a vague new word for why it works.  Why do sleeping pills work?  "Because they have the faculty of producing sleep".

Of course, here the word "faculty" explains nothing! It is mumbo-jumbo!

Why is the Trinity one?  Because they are one in "being"!  They have a "nature" of being one

Same thing!  No one can define "being" properly, but it sounds good.

Edited by mfbukowski, 27 December 2010 - 06:35 PM.

[mfbukowski]

deleted

Edited by mfbukowski, 27 December 2010 - 06:47 PM.

[TAO]

jmordecai, on 27 December 2010 - 01:53 PM, said:

Tao,

I do not consider proprietary LDS scripture to be "modern day revelation", that's an assumption LDS need to prove.  I quote the Book of Mormon (1830) and the JST (1830-1833) on matters of deity as they reflect Joseph Smith's Trinitarian/pre-polytheistic thinking. Besides, Joseph Smith tried selling the Book of Mormon copyright, so I have no conflict in quoting it.

Lol jmordecai, as said, if you are going to accept any of it, you must accept all of it, or else you are drawing an arbitrary line in between where he is right and wrong.  Do you accept his revelation, in addition to the changes he made (which were accurate due to the fact he was the one who did the translation in the first place)?  Or do you deny it all.  You can' t have it one way or another.  Are  you going to quote the things Joseph Smith translated (and in that case, I will too) or are you not going too (in which case, I'll just use the Bible to show you what I mean).

Quote

It's that simple. When Jesus Christ came along, we don't get to make him another separate distinct god, in violation of the Shema, on the basis of our own humanistic reasoning.

Call for Proof that it violates the Shema to think that God and Jesus Christ, two separate beings with separate souls, share the title of God together?

Quote

Understanding the complexity of God is a mystery:

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh...
1 Tim 3:16

And yet, it so says in John 17:21 - That they all may be one; as thou, Father,  art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the  world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Great is the mystery of godliness - and yet, as it says here, separate individuals may become one, that they can.

[mfbukowski]

TAO, on 27 December 2010 - 06:52 PM, said:

And yet, it so says in John 17:21 - That they all may be one; as thou, Father,  art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the  world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Great is the mystery of godliness - and yet, as it says here, separate individuals may become one, that they can.

Precisely.

They become one in purpose and in love, just as the Godhead is unified as one, and just as we can be unified with them as shown in this verse.

Just as a family can be "one", they are one and we can be with them.  This is also evident when Paul teaches that we are to be "one flesh" with our wives, as the Savior is one with the church.

Clearly we are not to be one in "being"- whatever that is, with our wives and the church.  And yet we have the admonition to be "one" as Jesus is one with the church.

This is the way the Godhead is one and how we can be unified with them.  The family is the perfect example.  When we speak of the "Godhead" or "God" we are speaking of a family- it is a collective noun in a sense- just as if we were saying "You Bukowskis are one on this issue", or we could single out a particular "Bukowski" and speak of that one individually.

I think of the term "God" as a family name.  Makes a lot more sense than "one being", which says precisely nothing.

And what is the purpose of this family?  "Bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man"

In other words, "raising the kids"! (us)

Edited by mfbukowski, 27 December 2010 - 07:09 PM.

[TAO]

mfbukowski, on 27 December 2010 - 07:06 PM, said:

I think of the term "God" as a family name.  Makes a lot more sense than "one being", which says precisely nothing.

Hmmm... I think this might be good to look at in another thread in the future... it'd be interesting to think about what being one as he is will truly be like (I'm not married yet) =).

Edited by TAO, 27 December 2010 - 07:10 PM.

[mfbukowski]

TAO, on 27 December 2010 - 07:10 PM, said:

Hmmm... I think this might be good to look at in another thread in the future... it'd be interesting to think about what being one as he is will truly be like (I'm not married yet) =).

Well I wish I thought this up, but I didn't.  It is a trend of theological thought called "Social Trinitarianism" which for my money really expresses the LDS view well- though it is not formulated by LDS- except perhaps Dr. Peterson who I think is headed in that direction.

You might want to google it.  Here's another cool word to check out: perichoresis.  Excellent ideas for carrying LDS theology forward imo.

Incidentally, these areas are also good ways to express possible areas of unity with Creedal Christians- many Creedals are picking up on these ideas which are quite close to ours!

The Lord is at work in the world!

Edited by mfbukowski, 27 December 2010 - 07:32 PM.

[mfbukowski]

Here, this is a start on what I am talking about:

http://plato.stanfor...y/#PerMonSocTri

Quote

3.4 Perichoretic Monotheist Social Trinitarianism

Stephen T. Davis (1999, 2003, 2006) constructs a social trinitarian theory which in his view bridges or straddles the social-Latin divide. Like Swinburne, he gives a philosophical argument for there being more than one divine person. God must be perfect in love, which requires that he loves another. But it is possible that only God exists. Either social trinitarianism is true, or “there is no ‘other’ in the Godhead” (2006, 65). But there must be an “other” in the divine nature, therefore social trinitarianism is true (2006, 65–8; Davis 1999). Unlike Swinburne's argument, this one doesn't involve divine persons causing others to exist. Also, it is strictly speaking not an argument for social trinitarianism, as it only tries to prove that there is more than one thing capable of loving and being loved within the divine nature. (Davis 2006, 66–68)

Davis holds that there are three persons, conscious purposive agents, which are essentially and equally divine. None is a cause of any other. These three persons differ “primarily and pre-eminently in their relations to each other” (Davis 2006, 71). The Father “begets” the Son, and these two bear a different relation to the Spirit; but these relations are not causal, but only logical. Whatever any of the three persons does respecting the rest of reality, the other two in some sense do as well, and they are not capable of disagreeing. God is personal (God in some sense contains three persons) but isn't strictly speaking a person (Davis 2006, 69–71). God just is (identical to) the divine nature or godhead (2006, 75).

Why is this a form of monotheism rather than tritheism? Davis mentions their equally possessing the divine essence, and their inability to disagree, but for him the main factor is that the three enjoy the relation of perichoresis, which he expounds as meaning “co-inherence, mutual indwelling, interpenetrating, merging” (2006, 72). It has been objected that the concept of perichoresis is too unclear to help us see why three divine persons should be one God (Tuggy 2003, 170–1). Davis admits the unclarity, but appeals to the pro-Nicene tradition of giving admittedly inadequate analogies for the Trinity (2006, 72). (See section 3.3 in the supplementary document on the history of Trinity theories.) He invites us to imagine the contradictory situation of three circles being simultaneously in State 1 and in State 2 (2 representing them as “stacked” or circumscribing the same area).

And on it goes- you really should read the whole section.

Essentially when you take 3 circles and "stack" them on top of eachother, you only "see" one circle- but they are three individual circles, unified in time and space in the analogy.  Just as you can have 3 persons unified as one in mind, love and purpose, but only "see" one God as I think LDS theology represents.

Sometimes you see the 3, sometimes you see them as one.  

Theology is just beginning to catch up to what the prophet already knew.

Edited by mfbukowski, 27 December 2010 - 07:48 PM.

[Vance]

I can see why Bowman was reluctant to provide his counter argument.  Rather than counter is seems more to affirm.

I will respond to his "points" as I have time.

Rob Bowman, on 24 December 2010 - 01:15 PM, said:

Vance,

I have a few minutes, and seeing that you refuse to go educate yourself on the topic, I will provide you with a crash course on John 1:1.

How wonderful Bowman is to condescend to actually provide a "counter" argument.

Quote

The word theos ("God") in John 1:1c is a predicate nominative noun (i.e., it gives a further identification or description of the subject, in this case ho logos, "the Word").

Exactly!!!

A predicate nominative noun describes the subject. As in “jesus is friend” or “peter is rock”.  But those sentences don’t make sense in English although they would in Greek.  To have them make sense in English we need to add an article.  As in “jesus is (a) friend” or “peter is (a) rock”.  

Quote

The word theos in 1:1c is anarthrous, meaning that it does not have the article ("the") in front of it.

True!  Meaning that it isn’t “god” in the specific sense with the article ("the"), as in “ho theos”/“the god” that is found in 1:1b, but in a generic sense, as in “god” or “a god” or “divine” or “god like sort”.

Quote

However, this grammatical fact is semantically of no significance; that is, it has nothing to do with the meaning of the word theos.

Also true.  As shown above adding the indefinite article “a” didn’t change the meaning of “friend” or “house”.  It did, however, clarify the English.

So far the translations I posted still stand.

Quote

This is easily demonstrable. The anarthrous theos (in different cases, specifically, theou, genitive; theon, accusative) occurs elsewhere in the immediate context of the Johannine Prologue four other times and always means "God": "sent from God," "children of God," and "from God" (theou, 1:6, 12, 13); "no one has ever seen God" (theon, 1:18).

Meaning “god”, not in the specific sense, but in the generic sense, as in “god” or “a god” or “divine” or “god like sort”.

Quote

Case also has nothing to do with the semantics of the word.

So then, when Paul uses "theoi" (the plural of "theos") in 1 Cor 8:5, it MUST have the same meaning because it has the same case? Is that where you want to go?

Does context change the meaning? Does adding a definite article change the meaning?

Quote

Specifically, John routinely uses the nominative ho theos to mean "the Ggod" (John 3:2, 16, 17, 33, 34; 4:24; etc.).

There, fixed it for Bowman.  Oops by adding context, the meaning was changed.

Quote

If John 1:1c is an exception, it is the only such exception in John's writings.

No one is claiming that John 1:1c is an exception.

Edited by Vance, 27 December 2010 - 08:43 PM.

[Vance]

mfbukowski, on 27 December 2010 - 06:09 PM, said:

Not too shabby!

Thank you sir.

And it still hasn't been refuted.  Or should I say "refudiated"?  

Edited by Vance, 27 December 2010 - 09:06 PM.

[Vance]

jmordecai, on 24 December 2010 - 10:36 AM, said:

It's evident you are arguing for the sake of arguing, as you apply no consistent methodology. You want to dismiss all of the verses and BoM,JST texts that plainly state there is only one God, and that Christ is both the Father and the Son, by citing verses such as John 17:21 as the controlling entity over all.

That isn't a counter argument.  I don't dismiss those verses at all.  I am just explaining to you that they don't mean all that you are trying to impose upon them.

You have yet to show where I am wrong.  All you have to do is supply one little teeny tiny verse that clearly and plainly states that God, the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ are the same being.

I won't hold my breath.

Quote

By doing so violates your position that the Bible isn't univocal, thus no single verse speaks for another. You can't have it both ways.

Well, just show me how the "one"ness of John 17:21 doesn't apply to the "one"ness of God. And feel free to ignore any reference to "one"ness outside of John.

Quote

I don't presuppose any definition on the nature of God. I accept the text for what is says. Christ emphasized that proper understanding of who God is, isin the foremost commandment:
One of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord.
Mark 12:28-29, cf. Deut. 6:4

WOW!!!! Talk about missing it.

Deut. 6:5 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Mark 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
  31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

Matt 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
  37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
  38 This is the first and great commandment.
  39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Luke 10:25 ¶ And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
  26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
  27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
  28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

Quote

That One Jehovah manifests Himself to us, whether in the flesh, called the Son, or by the Spirit, called the Holy Spirit doesn't allow me to tinker with the foremost commandment and develop constructs that permit more than one Jehovah/Elohim on the basis of mankind's reasoning that a being (I prefer manifestation) requires separate distinct entities.

But you did.    

Edited by Vance, 27 December 2010 - 09:05 PM.

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 24 December 2010 - 01:15 PM, said:

The singular noun theos (in all cases) occurs 80 times in the Gospel of John, and virtually all translations uniformly translate it as "God" in all 80 occurrences. A minority of translations vary from this uniform practice only in John 1:1c (and a few also do in John 10:33, again to avoid Jesus being called God). A theological agenda, not sound exegetical reasoning, is the basis for this departure from the otherwise uniform translation of the singular theos.

And when is the definite article "ho"/"the" (or other similar modifiers) in the context and when is it not?

For example in John 1:1b, and 2 "ho theo"/"the god" is specifically separated from "ho logos"/"the word" by the use of the word "pros"/"toward"

According to Strong's, the word "pros" is used 726 times, of those it is translated, "unto" 340 times, "to" 203 times, "with" 43 times, "for" 25 times, "against" 24 times, "among" 20 times, "at" 11 times, not tr 6, misc 53, vr to 1    

Do any of those indicate anything but a distinct separation of entities?

Edited by Vance, 27 December 2010 - 09:41 PM.

[jmordecai]

Quote

TAO
Lol jmordecai, as said, if you are going to accept any of it, you must accept all of it, or else you are drawing an arbitrary line in between where he is right and wrong. Do you accept his revelation, in addition to the changes he made (which were accurate due to the fact he was the one who did the translation in the first place)? Or do you deny it all. You can' t have it one way or another. Are you going to quote the things Joseph Smith translated (and in that case, I will too) or are you not going too (in which case, I'll just use the Bible to show you what I mean).

Reread my statement, I don't regard any proprietary LDS scriptures as authoritative. Your insistence that I accept or deny all of Joseph Smith's statements is illogical. If Joseph Smith said 2+2=4 and I agree with it doesn't mean that I have to accept all he says or else deny that 2+2=4.

Furthermore, what constitutes LDS scripture has evolved over the years. Past prophets considered the Journal of Discourses part of the Standard Works. The Lectures of Faith were LDS canon for 86 years, and removed in from the D&C in 1921. The D&C has suffered numerous edits, additions and omissions.

Quote

Call for Proof that it violates the Shema to think that God and Jesus Christ, two separate beings with separate souls, share the title of God together?

The Shema is just that: Jehovah our Elohim is one Jehovah.

I don't have to prove your assumptions. Besides, your question skirts the bigger theological issue pertaining to polytheism—multiple gods (not merely beings).

Quote

And yet, it so says in John 17:21 - That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

All believers share the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which unites them as one "body". The Lectures on Faith, V, teach that the Father and Son share the same mind: the Holy Ghost.

The Apostle Paul shares a similar teaching in that only the Spirit of God knows the thoughts of God, and believers posses the Spirit of God:
For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God.
1 Corinthians 2:11-12

[mfbukowski]

Vance, on 27 December 2010 - 08:43 PM, said:

Thank you sir.

And it still hasn't been refuted.  Or should I say "refudiated"?  

Nobody's touched the eternal punishment for a created creature argument.  I agree it's not exactly "fair" to say the least.

"OK- here's the good news! You have eternal life now!  Here's the bad- you get to spend it in hell!!"

And all for the crime of never hearing the name of Jesus Christ because you were born in China in 3000 BC?

Sounds a tad shaky to me.

[jmordecai]

Quote

You have yet to show where I am wrong. All you have to do is supply one little teeny tiny verse that clearly and plainly states that God, the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ are the same being.

I don't have to refute your red herring.

Since the overwhelming majority who read the biblical scriptures come away with the notion that there is only One God manifest in Three Persons — when you argue contrary, as the minority opinion you bear the burden of proof.

Furthermore, you insert a criteria of same being — which is a red herring.

You are arguing from human experience, which from observation two beings cannot share the same essence. There are exceptions: conjoined twins and dissociative identity come to mind. I don't assume to bind God to the same physical laws we abide by. For example, the book of Revelations mentions the "seven spirits" of God (v. 1:4, 3:1, 4:5, 5:6).

When it comes to defining God, I don't impose upon him my understanding of what constitutes a being. I accept the notion that there is only One God and He is a spirit, but I can't comprehend what it means to transcend knowledge, time, space and matter. I can't comprehend what it means to have existed from all eternity backwards. If God can manifest in our realm as an angel, a pillar of fire, a cloud, a burning bush, talking through a donkey, etc. — I don't presume that He is unable to subordinate himself as a man. The Gospel of John (1:18) and the Lectures on Faith, 5:2d, say that Christ was in the bosom of the Father.

See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form.
Colossians 2:8-9

God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.
2 Corinthians 5:19

Quote

Well, just show me how the "one"ness of John 17:21 doesn't apply to the "one"ness of God. And feel free to ignore any reference to "one"ness outside of John.

I answered this above in my response to Tao.

Quote

WOW!!!! Talk about missing it.

What you are trying to convey here? Are you pitting one set of verses against another?

You first quote Deut 6:5... is that to refute my quote of the prior verse: Deut 6:4?

In context:
Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one! You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. Deut. 6:4-5

As for Mark 12:30, Matt 22:36, and Luke 10:25, they don't nullify Mark 12:28-29. In order to love God one must have a proper understanding of who God is. You aren't loving the right god if you believe he is crystal rocks, "mother nature", a golden calf, or a pagan idol.

What's your point?

Edited by jmordecai, 28 December 2010 - 02:33 AM.

[jmordecai]

duplicate

Edited by jmordecai, 28 December 2010 - 03:40 AM.

[Vance]

jmordecai, on 28 December 2010 - 02:31 AM, said:

I don't have to refute your red herring.

It isn't a red herring, it is the argument.

Quote

Since the overwhelming majority who read the biblical scriptures come away with the notion that there is only One God manifest in Three Persons . . .

Well, not exactly.  This statement is nearly correct when the proper definition of "person" is used.  The problem is that Creedal Christians insist on a "special pleading" definition of person, which isn't really a person but rather more like a personality.

Here is the 1828 Websters definition of "person" which I have posted before.

Quote

PERSON, n. per'sn. [L. persona; said to be compounded of per, through or by, and sonus, sound; a Latin word signifying primarily a mask used by actors on the state.]

    1. An individual human being consisting of body and soul. We apply the word to living beings only, possessed of a rational nature; the body when dead is not called a person. It is applied alike to a man, woman or child.

    A person is a thinking intelligent being.

    2. A man, woman or child, considered as opposed to things, or distinct from them.

    A zeal for persons is far more easy to be perverted, than a zeal for things.

    3. A human being, considered with respect to the living body or corporeal existence only. The form of her person is elegant.

    You'll find her person difficult to gain.

    The rebels maintained the fight for a small time, and for their persons showed no want of courage.

    4. A human being, indefinitely; one; a man. Let a person's attainments be never so great, he should remember he is frail and imperfect.

    5. A human being represented in dialogue, fiction, or on the state; character. A player appears in the person of king Lear.

    These tables, Cicero pronounced under the person of Crassus, were of more use and authority than all the books of the philosophers.

    6. Character of office.

    How different is the same man from himself, as he sustains the person of a magistrate and that of a friend.

    7. In grammar, the nominative to a verb; the agent that performs or the patient that suffers any thing affirmed by a verb; as, I write; he is smitten; she is beloved; the rain descends in torrents. I, thou or you, he, she or it, are called the first, second and third persons. Hence we apply the word person to the termination or modified form of the verb used in connection with the persons; as the first or the third person of the verb; the verb is in the second person.

    8. In law, an artificial person, is a corporation or body politic.

    In person, by one's self; with bodily presence; not be representative.

    The king in person visits all around.

Quote

  — when you argue contrary, as the minority opinion you bear the burden of proof.

So, you can't support your position so you want to shift the burden of proof away from yourself. And I see you are using the fallacy of "Appeal to Popularity" to support it.

I have consistently argued that They are separate and distinct beings united in purpose, will, and all godly attributes.

You want to argue that They are one being of three persons.  Which is illogical.

Quote

Furthermore, you insert a criteria of same being — which is a red herring.

See above.

Quote

You are arguing from human experience, which from observation two beings cannot share the same essence.

Ok, please provide a verse that says they are the same "essence".  I won't hold my breath.

Quote

There are exceptions: conjoined twins and dissociative identity come to mind.

So that is what you envision when you think about the ontology of God?  Really?

Quote

I don't assume to bind God to the same physical laws we abide by.

Well, goodie for you.  But it is irrelevant to this discussion.

Quote

For example, the book of Revelations mentions the "seven spirits" of God (v. 1:4, 3:1, 4:5, 5:6).

And this is applicable how?

Quote

When it comes to defining God, I don't impose upon him my understanding of what constitutes a being. I accept the notion that there is only One God and He is a spirit, but I can't comprehend what it means to transcend knowledge, time, space and matter.

So,  . . .

You have NO CLUE,

BUT . . .

Mormons are wrong.  

Does that about cover it?

[Rob Bowman]

mfbukowski,

You wrote:

mfbukowski, on 28 December 2010 - 01:18 AM, said:

Nobody's touched the eternal punishment for a created creature argument.  I agree it's not exactly "fair" to say the least.

"OK- here's the good news! You have eternal life now!  Here's the bad- you get to spend it in hell!!"

And all for the crime of never hearing the name of Jesus Christ because you were born in China in 3000 BC?

Sounds a tad shaky to me.

It's not the evangelical position. You are knocking down a straw man.

No one goes to hell "for the crime of never hearing the name of Jesus Christ." If they go to hell, they go to hell because they are sinners deserving of God's wrath.

Your assumption is that those people in ancient China were good, righteous folk who don't deserve hell. Unfortunately, they deserve hell just as much as I do. When God saves someone from hell, that is not God giving them justice; it is God giving them mercy. And he is obligated to no one to give anyone mercy.

[Vance]

Quote

I can't comprehend what it means to have existed from all eternity backwards. If God can manifest in our realm as an angel, a pillar of fire, a cloud, a burning bush, talking through a donkey, etc. — I don't presume that He is unable to subordinate himself as a man.

But you DO PRESUME that God must be one being, or one essence or one substance.

Quote

The Gospel of John (1:18) and the Lectures on Faith, 5:2d, say that Christ was in the bosom of the Father.

Well, how can the Father have a "bosom" if He is only a spirit?

From 1828 Websters.

Quote

BO'SOM, n. s as z.

    1. The breast of a human being and the parts adjacent.

    2. The folds or covering of clothes about the breast.

    Put thy hand in thy bosom. Ex.4.

    3. Embrace, as with the arms; inclosure; compass; often implying friendship or affection; as, to live in the bosom of a church.

    4. The breast, as inclosing the heart; or the interior of the breast, considered as the seat of the passions.

    Anger resteth in the bosom of fools. Eccles. 7.

    Their soul was poured into their mother's bosom. Lam.2.

    5. The breast, or its interior, considered as a close place, the receptacle of secrets.

    If I covered my transgressions as Adam, by hiding my iniquity in my bosom. Job.31.

    6. Any inclosed place; the interior; as the bosom of the earth or of the deep.

    7. The tender affections; kindness; favor; as the son of his bosom; the wife of thy bosom.

    He shall carry the lambs in his bosom. Is.40.

    8. The arms, or embrace of the arms. Ps. 129.

    9. Inclination; desire. [Not used.]

Quote

See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form.
Colossians 2:8-9

So, you should ignore "tradition"al orthodoxy and study the words of Christ and His prophets.

Quote

God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.
2 Corinthians 5:19

Well, duh, I am in my son, and he is in me, does that mean we are the same being, essence, substance?

Quote

What you are trying to convey here? Are you pitting one set of verses against another?

You first quote Deut 6:5... is that to refute my quote of the prior verse: Deut 6:4?

In context:
Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one! You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. Deut. 6:4-5

As for Mark 12:30, Matt 22:36, and Luke 10:25, they don't nullify Mark 12:28-29. In order to love God one must have a proper understanding of who God is. You aren't loving the right god if you believe he is crystal rocks, "mother nature", a golden calf, or a pagan idol.

What's your point?

The point is that you did exactly what you said you didn't.  You messed with the first and great commandment, which is "thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment"

and,
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.

and,
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind;

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Vance, on 28 December 2010 - 08:58 AM, said:

Well, how can the Father have a "bosom" if He is only a spirit?

You're kidding, right?

Do you take all of the anthropomorphic language of the Bible literally, or only the parts you like?

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 28 December 2010 - 09:20 AM, said:

Vance,

You wrote:



You're kidding, right?

Do you take all of the anthropomorphic language of the Bible literally, or only the parts you like?

Do you take all of the anthropomorphic language of the Bible figuratively, or only the parts you like?