Jesus vs Jesus Debate

[rhinomelon]

I think anyone who believes that Christ actually lived, was in some sense divine, and carried out an Atonement of salvation, is a Christian.

Do you see how many mainstream Christians could see that as overly vague, given the clear statements by Jesus and the apostles?

A. God is a Trinity of Persons Who each possess the One Divine Nature.

Show me some scripture please.

My my, you are quite curious! So many questions! I'll give it a shot, just for the sake of conversation. As far as Scriptures about the Trinity, see those I referenced above, as well as those here: Biblical Basis of the Trinity

I usually don't like to post simple links, but in this case the answer to your question is more than I can post in a lunch break. My apologies for any frustration this causes you.

God is Spirit and uncreated, not material and created.

Did a prophet of G-d say this, or a man?

Both (as prophets are men, of course), and more, in the case of Jesus' own statements.

You mean Christ was born, right?

That's correct. The divine Son took on humanity through birth.

How can he be both and not a mixture? Explain please.

Another big topic! The mystery of what is now usually referred to as the "hypostatic union" is one of the mysteries of the Christian faith. We don't know how it was possible (but we don't know how a lot of things are possible, especially concerning an omnipotent God), but it is a teaching of Scripture.

Ah, yes, but what does he require of us to receive his good grace?

Faith, with works following as a result and outworking of that grace.

The inerrancy of words on paper? Don't you mean the inerrancy of the Gospel - which the 'Bible', nor the BoM is of itself, it is what they testify of.

Correct. We don't talk about perfect textual inerrancy, but about the inerrancy of the teachings of the Bible, everything that God has laid out for men.

And who was this 'last apostle', and when, exactly did he die?

John, and tradition speaks of him dying on around the end of the first century.

Whew! That has to be a typing record for me or something

Take care, everyone

[rhinomelon]

think that your list covers probably no more than a tiny fraction of the Protestant movement, let alone the entire Christian world.

Are none of the others Christian?

Except SteubieU is Catholic.

And I would also submit that early Christians would not have had a problem with A, B, C or D. Such doctrines simply hadn't yet been clearly stated. Indeed, the foundations for these essential truths was laid by these early Christians.

Just my thoughts. Now I'm really going Take care, y'all.

[Gordon]

rhinomelon -

Thanks for the response.

God is mentioned with physical attributes in the Bible. That's Jesus, who was "God with us" in human form.

What happened to Christ's (G-d's) resurrected body?

one in John 4 (God is spirit), and one at the end of Luke (a spirit has not flesh and bone as you see I have).

Isn't the HG a G-d? If the the G-dhead is indeed made up of three separate beings, then these scriptures would not apply to the Father, himself.

The Old Testament passages in particular highlight the fact that God is everywhere and sees everything, and that it is not simply "God's influence" that is everywhere, as LDS often state.

Yes, and all time is before him - past, present, and future. Can you explain how this is so? Explaining the Lord's time from Man's time is just as difficult for us as it is to comprehend how a physical being can see all, when our own physical eyes cannot. However, simply saying he is an omniscience spirit to satisfy our not understanding is not the answer. Knowing that we cannot understand all things in this life would be accepting reality.

The thing we would agree on is that our beliefs and doctrines about God and Christ are different and mutually exclusive, so the statement "LDS believe in a different Jesus" is not a flat out lie.

Then perhaps the ideal medium is to state that LDS believe differently about Jesus, then to continue with a statement that automatically brings about contention and defensiveness that, as has been stated, doesn't help bring opposing views closer to accord.

[rhinomelon]

Once "main stream Christianity" gets the whole Gospels, Apocrapha, mythology, gnostic, born again, catholic, protestent, various creeds and portrayals by Cecil B. Demille and Andrew Lloyd Webber thing consistant... then come on over and let's talk about the attributes of the Savior.

Maybe I'm just dense, but what do Cecil B. DeMille and Andrew Lloyd Webber have to do with the subject? Don't they do musicals or something?

Anyway, I would submit that mainstream Christianity collectively is a whole lot closer than LDS care to acknowledge. I see unity happening as a result of the work of the Holy Spirit. True, it is not an institutional unity, as LDS would like it to be, nor is it complete (as I and millions of others would like it to be), but it is there nonetheless. Many of the aspects you've mentioned above don't really play that big a role in mainstream Christianity anyway, like mythology or gnostic writings. We don't see churches splitting or joining based on gnostic texts, I mean.

Take care, Dad!

[rhinomelon]

Then perhaps the ideal medium is to state that LDS believe differently about Jesus, then to continue with a statement that automatically brings about contention and defensiveness that, as has been stated, doesn't help bring opposing views closer to accord.

Amen! That's exactly how I put it with friends and neighbors, LDS and non. At this point, I'm not continuing with the statement, I'm just answering other questions and issues. I didn't really want to start the thing in the first place. Way to go, Prov... Kidding...

What happened to Christ's (G-d's) resurrected body?

Still has it. But having a body is not intrinsic to being God. It is intrinsic to Christ's unique role in and through the incarnation. God can have a body, obviously, as we see in Christ, but that does not mean that He needs to or automatically has one. And in light of Jesus' teachings, and those of the apostles, I believe that God in essence is not embodied.

Isn't the HG a G-d? If the the G-dhead is indeed made up of three separate beings, then these scriptures would not apply to the Father, himself.

The Holy Spirit is a person of the Trinity, yes. However, Jesus' statements and others were not made in reference to the Holy Spirit, but to the Father. The Holy Spirit isn't introduced by Jesus until the end of John. All his prior teachings about God refer to the Father.

Yes, and all time is before him - past, present, and future. Can you explain how this is so?

Only that God is beyond time. I can explain it, in a way, but I can't grasp it, being a creature bound by time.

Explaining the Lord's time from Man's time is just as difficult for us as it is to comprehend how a physical being can see all, when our own physical eyes cannot. However, simply saying he is an omniscience spirit to satisfy our not understanding is not the answer. Knowing that we cannot understand all things in this life would be accepting reality.

But I do not see why one must assume that God is physical in the first place. The "omniscient spirit" belief is not a simple attempt at explaining stuff away; rather, it is a summary of the teachings of Christ, the apostles, and the prophets of the Old Testament. I do not claim to understand it all, but I can describe a great deal, thanks to the revelation and incarnation of Christ. There is a difference, in my opinion.

Good thoughts, Gordon. Take care

[Gordon]

My my, you are quite curious! So many questions! I'll give it a shot, just for the sake of conversation. As far as Scriptures about the Trinity, see those I referenced above, as well as those here: Biblical Basis of the Trinity

I understand that there are numerous books, scriptures, accounts etc. that one uses to come up with this conclusion, concept, or interpretation. However, my goal is to have presented to me a scripture that states that exact thing, not a bunch of scripture that can be interpreted to mean such.

God is Spirit and uncreated, not material and created.

Did a prophet of G-d say this, or a man?

Both (as prophets are men, of course), and more, in the case of Jesus' own statements.

Again, looking for a scripture that states this exactly.

That's correct. The divine Son took on humanity through birth.

As did we all.

Another big topic!   The mystery of what is now usually referred to as the "hypostatic union" is one of the mysteries of the Christian faith. We don't know how it was possible (but we don't know how a lot of things are possible, especially concerning an omnipotent God), but it is a teaching of Scripture.

This is exactly my point. Why the need to come up with abstract ideas that cannot even be explained nor understood, which are meant to support interpretations of scripture that aren't clearly stated? The Gospel is not abstract, nor difficult to understand. It is one of the most simple things the Lord has given us.

Faith, with works following as a result and outworking of that grace.

Yes, meaning it is not automatically received.

Correct. We don't talk about perfect textual inerrancy, but about the inerrancy of the teachings of the Bible, everything that God has laid out for men.

Yes, which may or may not all be there.

John, and tradition speaks of him dying on around the end of the first century.

I'm not looking for tradition, I'm looking for facts. Besides, didn't Jesus say John would remain until he returned...?

[William the Conqueror]

I'll answer your question. A Christian must believe:

A. God is a Trinity of Persons Who each possess the One Divine Nature.

B. God is Spirit and uncreated, not material and created

C. The Second Person of the Trinity took upon Himself a human nature and became truly man.

D. Jesus is fully God and fully man, not an admixture of the two.

E. Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit.

F. We are saved by God's grace alone, won for us on the cross.

G. The Resurrection of all the dead, both those in hell and those in Heaven.

H. The Inerrancy of the Bible

I. The completion of all revelation after the death of the last Apostle.

I think if you fail in one or more of these points (and LDS fail in many of them) you cannot be called a Christian.

Now Mr. SteubieU,

If I were a Brutus...or rather if I were a Mormon here is how I would counter all those statements.

A. The Trinity is the apostate doctrine taught after the apostles died and the church completely fell away from truth.

B. Again an apostate doctrine. The apostles knew the truth and taught that Yahweh was the child of Eloi and a heavenly mother. Read Psalms 82! Also for your information Yahweh who became the Christ and had 69 spirit brothers which included Lucifer and Baal. The apostles knew all this but this truth became lost.

C. No the son of Eloi, Yahweh took upon Himself a human nature. By the way Yahweh was only one of 70 sons of Eloi, hence the counsel of the Gods (Remember Psalms 82, duh!)

D. Again a false doctrine, Jesus didn't become fully God until after the resurrection. In His earthly body He was mortal. Sabellius was right after all and so was Arius. The result of the Council of Nicea showed how far the church had aposticized from what the Apostles had taught. After all a king, Constantine, the Ceasar, presided at the Counsel. What truth could come from that political embroilio? Forget what Proverbs says about God guiding the hearts of Kings, rather spend your time reading the Book of Mormon, and if you are going to read the Bible, read only the Joseph Smith translation for he completely changed the meaning of the introduction (Chapter 1) to the Book of John. The other translations were the result of apostate scribes who changed it from what the Apostle John wrote in the original manuscript. Thank God for Joseph Smith, as the church had not existed for about 1400 years before his time. It was totally dead by the 4th century.

E. Again wrong. Read B. Jesus had a Heavenly mother and a Heavenly father (Eloi). If we only had the original manuscripts from the Apostles we would know this.

F. Again wrong. We are saved by works, 'after all we can do.' Stay away from those wicked Antis or you might be influenced by their rabid apostate doctrines and lose your place in the Celestial Heaven.

G. I'm not sure, I'll have to review the Book of Mormon and the Doctrines and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price and get back to you. However those who have not heard the True Gospel, i.e.: Mormon, will be given a 2nd chance to receive it in the next life. Who knows maybe Cacheman or Pahoran or Bill Hamblin will be coaching you to get you out of Hell? Forget about Hebrews 9:27. Again it is either apostate scripture or it needs to be properly interpreted.

H. The Bible is correct in so far as it has been correctly translated, and Joseph Smith has been God's chosen vessel to do that for us. All other translations are apostate.

I. Revelation is continuing! Don't you realize that? Joseph Smith spoke in Tongues, and had many revelations from the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost -all in their bodies when he encountered them. And don't forget Moroni.

Our present Chief Apostle, Gordon B. Hinckley gets revelation on a regular basis.

But of one thing we can all be assured of, when Moroni or God revealed to Joseph Smith that all the denominations in so called Christendom were an abomination, it included the Catholic church. So my friend you had better call up a Ward in your area and have two missionaries visit you, otherwise I am afraid you will never make it to the Celestial Heaven. Also there is a bonus. You and your wife can have your marriage sealed for eternity so you can arrive at the highest tier of Celestial Heaven. Why take a chance and wait for a friend or relative to do it for you after you are dead? It might not happen.

Don't hesitate or wait. Now is the time! Now is the appointed time for true Salvation via the Gospel of Joseph Smith. You are burning daylight Mr. SteubieU.

[Zorak]

...I believe the consensus from another long-gone thread is "Jesii".

So many Jesii, so little time.....

Seriously, though--

I submit that the Jehovah's Witnesses' Jesus is a different Jesus than the Mormon Jesus. Mormons believe (at least it is their doctrine) that Jehovah of the Old Testament is the same character as Jesus of the New Testament. Jehovah's Witnesses are appalled by this notion. Surely these two Jesii do not match? So you have two different Jesii right there.

Likewise, as I think rhinomelon said, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity brings into relief even more significant differences between the Jesii. Those who believe in the Trinity believe that Jesus and God the father are one--literally. This sounds like a different Jesus than the one I was taught about as a Mormon kid. I would say that a person who is actually 3-in-1 is significantly different from someone else who is only one person.

So far, I have identified at least three different Jesii. Cool. I wonder how many Jesii one could find?

[Gordon]

Still has it. But having a body is not intrinsic to being God. It is intrinsic to Christ's unique role in and through the incarnation. God can have a body, obviously, as we see in Christ, but that does not mean that He needs to or automatically has one. And in light of Jesus' teachings, and those of the apostles, I believe that God in essence is not embodied.

This is why I'm asking questions, because I want an exact explaination for the statements being made. What you're suggesting, to me, is that the Father does not have a physical body, but when he is the Son, he has his resurrected body. Well, were is the body when he is the Father?

The Holy Spirit is a person of the Trinity, yes. However, Jesus' statements and others were not made in reference to the Holy Spirit, but to the Father. The Holy Spirit isn't introduced by Jesus until the end of John. All his prior teachings about God refer to the Father.

The scripture refers to the people being able to worship the Father only with the spirit. The scripture states this is so because G-d is spirit, however, it does not say he is only spirit. You see, we are both spirit and flesh, so why would it be different for our Father, when we are created in his image and likeness (meaning like him)?

Only that God is beyond time. I can explain it, in a way, but I can't grasp it, being a creature bound by time.

Right, we cannot grasp all things with our little mortal brain power, so no need to come up with some abstract idea to explain something we cannot understand, even more so, when the abstract idea cannot be explained in of itself.

But I do not see why one must assume that God is physical in the first place. The "omniscient spirit" belief is not a simple attempt at explaining stuff away; rather, it is a summary of the teachings of Christ, the apostles, and the prophets of the Old Testament. I do not claim to understand it all, but I can describe a great deal, thanks to the revelation and incarnation of Christ. There is a difference, in my opinion.

I'm not assuming anything, because that is what modern revelation reveals, and that is what JS saw. With these revelations, it is easy to see how it accords with early scripture, and how it in no way contradicts it.

[SteubieU]

This is why I'm asking questions, because I want an exact explaination for the statements being made. What you're suggesting, to me, is that the Father does not have a physical body, but when he is the Son, he has his resurrected body. Well, were is the body when he is the Father?

You misunderstand the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. There was a heresy in the 4th century called Sabellianism, and it looks like that is what you are confusing the Christian understanding with. Sabellianism said that there was one person, the Father, and He takes upon Himself three different roles (Son and Holy Spirit) such that when He is the Son, He is no longer the Father.

Christianity teaches that the Father eternally begets the Son and from the Father and Son eternally proceeds the Holy Spirit. They are three DIFFERENT persons, and each posses the Divine Nature fully. Therefore, the Son can take upon Himself a human nature, and it does not mean that either the Father or Holy Spirit have a human nature as well... because they are different people. To give a bad analogy, if I was married and had a child, and I could take upon myself the nature of an ant such that I was fully man and fully ant after my child is born, it would not affect either one of them.

[Proverbs]

Amen! That's exactly how I put it with friends and neighbors, LDS and non. At this point, I'm not continuing with the statement, I'm just answering other questions and issues. I didn't really want to start the thing in the first place. Way to go, Prov...  Kidding...

Don't go blaming me you are the one who made the comment.

[Cogitoergosum]

Who actually believes that a dead guy came back to life after three days? How many people had parallel experiences?

If there was a historical resurrection, I wish the dead guy would just stop screwing with us then and show up. All this nonsense about which Jesus is which seems pretty irrelevant until he does.

The notion that I have to believe it before I can know it is like telling me to jump off Moroni's head atop the SL temple to get a testiphony of the church.

[Gordon]

They are three DIFFERENT persons, and each posses the Divine Nature fully.

BINGO! You have now won a prize: a piece to the fulness of the Gospel.

They are indeed three different, and separate, personages - which is exactly what JS said. Just like your own son is separate from you.

[Gordon]

Who actually believes that a dead guy came back to life after three days? How many people had parallel experiences?

I do.

If there was a historical resurrection, I wish the dead guy would just stop screwing with us then and show up. All this nonsense about which Jesus is which seems pretty irrelevant until he does.

He did.

The notion that I have to believe it before I can know it is like telling me to jump off Moroni's head atop the SL temple to get a testiphony of the church.

Indeed. Would you touch Moroni's head if the statue was on temple grounds to gain a promised 'tesitimony' (I'm sure that was just a typo...), if that's all it took?

[SteubieU]

They are three DIFFERENT persons, and each posses the Divine Nature fully.

BINGO! You have now won a prize: a piece to the fulness of the Gospel.

They are indeed three different, and separate, personages - which is exactly what JS said. Just like your own son is separate from you.

What I said is the faith held by "all the saints" since the 1st century. We still have different ideas of what that means, but what I mean is this: they are not "separate" in the sense that you and I are separate... where one person of the Trinity is, all three persons are there (like at Christ's Baptism where it was made manifest)... but they are not the same Person... so that the Father says to the Son... "You" and about Himself, "Me."

All three always existed, have no creator, and are always perfectly and 100% divine.

So you see, we don't agree.

[Gordon]

What I said is the faith held by "all the saints" since the 1st century. We still have different ideas of what that means, but what I mean is this: they are not "separate" in the sense that you and I are separate... where one person of the Trinity is, all three persons are there.

Shame, I'm going to have to take back that prize now - man, I thought you had it.

Well, I'll go back to my prior statement: how, exactly, does this work? How can one part have a body, but the others don't? Is it some sort of cyborg?

(like at Christ's Baptism where it was made manifest)...

Not sure how this explains your view? The HG was in the form of a dove - completely separate and different from Jesus that arose from the water. The Father spoke of his Son from the Heavens, which was not the river Jordan, nor was the voice coming from Jesus.

All three always existed, have no creator, and are always perfectly and 100% divine.

Where does it state this in scripture, exactly as you have stated? Christ has always been our Lord, and the Father has always existed as far as we are concerned, but where are you getting this 'no creator' statement? Didn't you just say the Father 'created' the Son?

[rhinomelon]

Don't go blaming me you are the one who made the comment. 

Yeah, I know, I lit that fire.

This is why I'm asking questions, because I want an exact explaination for the statements being made. What you're suggesting, to me, is that the Father does not have a physical body, but when he is the Son, he has his resurrected body. Well, were is the body when he is the Father?

SteubieU beat me to it. This is a common misunderstanding of the Trinity. The general term for it is "modalism", as in one God putting on three different masks to deal with humans. The Son is not the Father, the Father is not the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Son.

The scripture refers to the people being able to worship the Father only with the spirit. The scripture states this is so because G-d is spirit, however, it does not say he is only spirit. You see, we are both spirit and flesh, so why would it be different for our Father, when we are created in his image and likeness (meaning like him)?

It says that about the worshippers, yes, but about God it says that He is Spirit. Humans have spirits, while God is spirit. See the difference?

Right, we cannot grasp all things with our little mortal brain power, so no need to come up with some abstract idea to explain something we cannot understand, even more so, when the abstract idea cannot be explained in of itself.

I don't see how the Trinity is a mere abstraction. Just because something is incorporeal doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. After all, LDS talk about "intelligences" all the time, and they are not corporeal. "Love" is another example. Besides, the Trinity is easily described. "One God in three persons". Trying to understand that completely is another matter! But since when should we expect that the Creator of a universe that we don't understand should be easily understandable?

Shame, I'm going to have to take back that prize now - man, I thought you had it.

Well, I'll go back to my prior statement: how, exactly, does this work? How can one part have a body, but the others don't? Is it some sort of cyborg?

You're thinking in LDS categories here, trying to put everything in a body. That isn't the way "spirit" works. Also, the Son does not need the body, but chose to take it on in order to serve as our perfect high priest and mediator before God.

Can you explain exactly how a spirit body is integrated into a physical body, in terms of your own belief?

Not sure how this explains your view? The HG was in the form of a dove - completely separate and different from Jesus that arose from the water. The Father spoke of his Son from the Heavens, which was not the river Jordan, nor was the voice coming from Jesus.

Exactly! So, as you've summed up, the modalist view of God doesn't fit scripture. Jesus' baptism is one reference used to support the Trinity contra modalism. Modalists would say that God can only wear one mask at a time. But at the baptism, there were three distinct persons involved, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Where does it state this in scripture, exactly as you have stated?

It doesn't, in those exact words. But many different verses, taken altogether, do reach that conclusion.

To offer a counterpoint, where in the Bible does it clearly state that God the Father has a body? Or for that matter, is there any passage in the LDS Quad which clearly lays out the LDS doctrine of eternal progression? No, there isn't. The phrase isn't even found in the LDS canon.

What I'm getting at is, Scripture is not a series of doctrinal statements, but a collection of writings from dozens of different people in many different places and times. Doctrine is formed from the sum of the entirety of Scripture on a basic point. It is a revelation in story form, not in dry lists of doctrinal stances.

LDS doctrine is formed much the same way. Are there any places in the LDS Quad in which any of the Articles of Faith are stated word-for-word? No, because the Articles are summaries of what has been extracted from LDS Scripture. I hope I'm not talking in circles here.

Anyway, the Father begets the Son eternally. The Father never created the Son, otherwise we'd all be worshipping a creature, which the Bible condemns as idolatry. For a good analogy on this idea, read the chapters on the Trinity in C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity. Excellent thinking on this very point.

Take care, everyone

[Gordon]

SteubieU beat me to it. This is a common misunderstanding of the Trinity. The general term for it is "modalism", as in one God putting on three different masks to deal with humans. The Son is not the Father, the Father is not the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Son.

Herein lies the problem with this 'modalism'; Jesus has an actual physical resurrected body, and you say the Father does not have one. Well, were does it go? No analogy, no 'modalism', no abstract and unexplainable scenarios, I want an exact and specific response.

It says that about the worshippers, yes, but about God it says that He is Spirit. Humans have spirits, while God is spirit. See the difference?

Yes I do. However, you failed to address the part of us being created in his likeness. Our having physical bodies while he does not, is not like him. Jesus also said the Father is like how they saw Jesus - with a body.

I don't see how the Trinity is a mere abstraction. Just because something is incorporeal doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. After all, LDS talk about "intelligences" all the time, and they are not corporeal. "Love" is another example. Besides, the Trinity is easily described. "One God in three persons". Trying to understand that completely is another matter!   But since when should we expect that the Creator of a universe that we don't understand should be easily understandable?

Yes, one can go into three, however three can never go into one. We're talking physics and mathematics here - these are natural laws that are constant. The trinity IS abstract, because neither you or anyone else can explain it in a way that can be easily understood, or possible for that matter. It is quite different from love, because we experience love everyday - not abstract, neither is intelligence, because we use it everyday too. They may be corporeal because we can't fully grasp it, but that's not the same as trying to explain something that we have never experienced, and is impossible to be under the laws of the universe.

You're thinking in LDS categories here, trying to put everything in a body. That isn't the way "spirit" works. Also, the Son does not need the body, but chose to take it on in order to serve as our perfect high priest and mediator before God.

This has nothing to do with an LDS grasp, because it deals with the laws of the universe - which G-d is a part of. I'm not trying to put everything in a body - the HG doesn't have one. What I am trying to get you to explain, is how can the Father not have a body, yet the Son does - even though they are the same being, at the same time.

Where does it say - anywhere scripturally - that Christ does not need a body? Also, you have yet to tell me were it goes when G-d is the Father, but comes back when he is the Son (because he is going to have it when he comes again).

Can you explain exactly how a spirit body is integrated into a physical body, in terms of your own belief?

I don't need to, because we know it happens. On the other hand, nowhere in scripture does it say G-d does NOT have a body - that is your conclusion based upon interpretations of them.

Exactly! So, as you've summed up, the modalist view of God doesn't fit scripture. Jesus' baptism is one reference used to support the Trinity contra modalism. Modalists would say that God can only wear one mask at a time. But at the baptism, there were three distinct persons involved, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Yeah...and this helps you how? Neither the modalist view nor the Trinity fit. Replacing one view that is not possible with another one fails to work.

It doesn't, in those exact words. But many different verses, taken altogether, do reach that conclusion.

No, that won't work. Jesus did not give us truth to 'reach conclusions'. No conclusion, interpretations, or speculation, if it wasn't said by the Lord, then you can't say it's truth.

To offer a counterpoint, where in the Bible does it clearly state that God the Father has a body? Or for that matter, is there any passage in the LDS Quad which clearly lays out the LDS doctrine of eternal progression? No, there isn't. The phrase isn't even found in the LDS canon.

We do have prophets of G-d to clearly state them. Where is Peter, Moses, or Abraham stating what you believe? As I stated earlier, Jesus said the Father is as he appears - with a body. How can the Father be as the Son without a body, when the Son has one?

What I'm getting at is, Scripture is not a series of doctrinal statements, but a collection of writings from dozens of different people in many different places and times. Doctrine is formed from the sum of the entirety of Scripture on a basic point. It is a revelation in story form, not in dry lists of doctrinal stances.

No. Doctrine was not 'formed' from a collection of bits and pieces. While there are many stories, histories, analogies, and such found in scripture, doctrine is given as complete. If those doctrine are lost or corrupted, the were still given in full by the Lord. You cannot say something is truth or doctrine if you cannot show me where is specifically is stated as such. Having a modern prophet re-state these doctrines from the Lord is/was a must.

No, because the Articles are summaries of what has been extracted from LDS Scripture. I hope I'm not talking in circles here.

No, they were given by a prophet of G-d.

Anyway, the Father begets the Son eternally. The Father never created the Son, otherwise we'd all be worshipping a creature, which the Bible condemns as idolatry.

Tell me, what does beget mean? And why would you call a son of G-d a 'creature'? Are you a creature? And the Bible condemns worshiping false idols - which the Son is not. However, we are to worship the Father anyway.

For a good analogy on this idea, read the chapters on the Trinity in C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity. Excellent thinking on this very point.

I will stick with scripture.

[Restformationist]

Do most non-Mormon Christians believe that Jesus was Jehovah, the god of the Old Testament? Or not?

The majority of Evangelical/Protestant and Catholic Christians never consider it. It just never becomes an issue, because we do not single out members of the Godhead as the LDS Church does. We worship GOD as a whole, not the Father exclusively. (LDS Leaders in the past have said we should not worship Christ).

But to answer your question, yes, I would say Jehovah is Christ. But from my perspective, Jehovah is also the Father and the Holy Spirit. The three persons form one God.

[SteubieU]

Herein lies the problem with this 'modalism'; Jesus has an actual physical resurrected body, and you say the Father does not have one.

[Gordon]

Both Rhino and I deny that modalism is true. We both, I believe, would say that in Himself, none of the three Persons -Father, Son and Holy Spirit - none of them have a body. Instead, they are purely spiritual. The Second Person, the Son, took upon Himself a human nature. Now that He has ascended into Heaven, He has a human body... yet, because He is distinct from the Father and Holy Spirit, neither one of them has a body.

OK, if none of them have a body, then where is Christ's resurrected body?

The Second Person, the Son, took upon Himself a human nature.

He was born - just like we were.

Now that He has ascended into Heaven, He has a human body... yet, because He is distinct from the Father and Holy Spirit, neither one of them has a body.

Say that again!?

So if Christ has a body, while the Father and the HG do not, wouldn't that make them separate? How can the Father not have a body while Christ does, yet not be separate? This you must explain.

God is a Trinity: in Himself, He is a communion of Persons Whose love is fruitful. It is from the love of the Father for the Son and the Son for the Father that the Holy Spirit proceeds.

Where are you getting this? What scripture says anything of the sort?

Male and female are like this love in that they love each other and their love is real; their love is so real that in 9 months you may have to give it a name. That is how male and female are like God.

See, I just don't get how you come to this - this is what I mean by abstract. The scripture says Man was created in G-d's image according to his likeness. Image means looks the same, likeness means like the other. Him not having a body while we do, is not like him.

The problem is twofold: first of all, since we are asserting that God is not material, you can't say that our understanding of God's nature contradicts physical principles.

No, because Christ has a body which obeys the laws of nature, and you assert the Father is the Son.

I think I understand the problem here... it is terminology. In the Christian understanding, these terms are usually understood to be synonymous: nature, essence, being.

Sure, I understand this, but the usage they are used in are not found in the Bible. Since we are talking about the same person, using the same source, then we must use it on the same premise. I cannot use Pres. Hinkley as a source, because you do not recognize him as a prophet, nor will I accept your use of Man's terms because I do not recognize them as from the Lord.

The fact that the Son does not need a body, that it is not essential to His nature, is assumed in Philippians 2:5-11. There is a pattern established here: Jesus in the form of God, but then 1. He lowers Himself to have a human nature (specifically, having a human body), and 2. then He lowers Himself even further to accept the most awful kind of death. It is because the Son is willing to do this that God raises Him up... both His body to overcome the lowering in 2., and His "dignity" so to speak as God by giving Him in the name above all names. See, because He became man (1.), in some sense He became lower than the angels.... but that is not appropriate for Him Who emptied Himself fully.

Crosscheck this with Hebrews 1:3-4 which says that He obtained a more excellent name, even with His human nature, than that of the angels.

It's 'assumed'!? By who? Where in those scriptures does it say anything about Christ not needing a body? He had to have a body to atone for our sins, or else how could we be saved? Those verses simply explain what happened, nothing about not needing a body.

By the way, those scriptures do much for my statements however. In verse 7 of Phil. it states Christ gained a body in the likeness of men. Just as I stated we were created in the likness of G-d - with a body.

Here's the big one: In Heb. 1:3, it says Jesus is the exact representation of the very being of the Father...Jesus had a body, so the Father HAD to have a body for them to be exact.

Show me where anything that you and I share in common as revelation says this. You can't expect me to believe it just because you or supposed prophets in whom I don't believe say this.

When I say from the Lord, I mean out of his own mouth, through his prophets/apostles, and by the HG. Do I really need to give you a specific scripture that states if it didn't come from him then it's not doctrine?

Beget means that He pours out His life into the Son.

Now, if the Son did not have life before this, then how could he have always existed as the Son with the Father, since G-d has always been?

[SteubieU]

I think I see the problem here, it is with my term "seperate." Human beings are different, distinct persons, and they can be seperated from one another (my girlfriend, for example, is 2,500 miles away from me this year). The Father, Son and Holy Spirit, because of their divinity, can not be "seperated" from one another. They are distinct, different people... there are three people, but because all of them possesses the divinity in its fullness, you can't say, "God the Holy Spirit is here, but the Father and Son are not with Him." Even on the cross, the Father and the Holy Spirit were with the Son as He suffered. The Father and Holy Spirit did not suffer WITH the Son, but they were with Him in the same way that Mary His mother and the Beloved Disciple were with Him.

There are three persons, distinct from one another: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Each is God, yet there are not three Gods but one God; the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, the Holy Spirit is Lord, yet they are not three Lords but one Lord. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is not the Father. Each of them is co-equal, co-eternal, and worthy of all worship.

In Heaven, right now, the Son has a body, and the Son, who is fully God and fully man, is also united with the Father and Holy Spirit. They are "together" as a family of love.

See, I just don't get how you come to this - this is what I mean by abstract.  The scripture says Man was created in G-d's image according to his likeness.  Image means looks the same, likeness means like the other.  Him not having a body while we do, is not like him.

Two points to make here:

1. Michaelangelo made a statue of King David. It is in King David's image and likeness... yet it is not a human being. Something does not have to contain all of the same attributes to be in the "image" or "likeness" of something else.

2. And you MUST conclude the same thing if your theology is going to be consistent. If we are made in God's image and likeness, and, as you would say, God the Father has a resurrected body and a "spirit wife," than, I too must from the moment of my creation have a resurrected body and a spirit wife... is this true?

[SteubieU]

When I say from the Lord, I mean out of his own mouth, through his prophets/apostles, and by the HG. Do I really need to give you a specific scripture that states if it didn't come from him then it's not doctrine?

Beget means that He pours out His life into the Son.

Now, if the Son did not have life before this, then how could he have always existed as the Son with the Father, since G-d has always been?

Oh, I agree that Christ taking on a body was essential to our redemption. What I meant was that, if God the Father had decided that He did not want to atone for our sins, He could have not sent the Son to earth, and had that happened, He would not have had a body. Having a body is not essential to Who the Son is.

As far as, "Who is assuming that the Son did not have to have a body?," the answer is "Paul." He says that Jesus is in the form of God but then He empties Himself to be born in the likeness of men. If "being like God" already means having a human body, than what kind of "emptying" would there be to become a man?

And again, likeness does not mean everything is the same... after all, Jesus was conceived without sin, even though mankind is fallen... so there is also some difference.

Hebrews 1:3, "He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power." He bears the stamp of God's nature because He is divine, not because of His human body.

I do believe that everything has been revealed by God through the prophets and apostles. That revelation ended 2,000 years ago because God's revelation is complete in Christ Jesus, and He has nothing more to reveal.

The Son is pre-existent, "In the beginning was the Word," and He has life from the Father. This pouring out of life from the Father to the Son is outside of time, so there is no time about which one can say, "The Son did not exist then." The Son is not created, He is begotten. The three persons are coeternal.

[rhinomelon]

OK, if none of them have a body, then where is Christ's resurrected body?

With the Son. If you want a specific location, forget it. I have trouble enough knowing where my own mother is half the time!

He was born - just like we were.

Yes. But who the Son was before the Incarnation is where the big difference lies.

Say that again!? 

Okay. Now that He has ascended into Heaven, He has a human body... yet, because He is distinct from the Father and Holy Spirit, neither one of them has a body.

There you go. (Sorry, I couldn't resist!)

Where are you getting this? What scripture says anything of the sort?

Many Scriptures, all taken together. If you're looking for one verse that says everything, you are setting up a huge double standard, because not even LDS take that approach to scripture interpretation and hermeneutics. If you can show me one verse in the entire LDS Quad that explains eternal progression (or even mentions the phrase), or perhaps one verse that clearly states that the entire Christian church fell into complete and total apostasy, you might have a point.

See, I just don't get how you come to this - this is what I mean by abstract. The scripture says Man was created in G-d's image according to his likeness. Image means looks the same, likeness means like the other. Him not having a body while we do, is not like him.

Show me a verse that defines "image" as simply "looking the same". The issue is much more complex, I'm afraid. There are other ways to look at the image of God in humanity. The fact that we are conscious, thinking, loving, and capable of true relationship with other people and with God are also aspects of the image of God, as God is definitely portrayed in Scripture as being all those things. Nothing in the Bible about God having a body, though. Except in the incarnation, of course, which is a completely unique and unprecedented event.

No, because Christ has a body which obeys the laws of nature, and you assert the Father is the Son.

Like gravity? Oh wait, what about his ascension? Or what about death? That's a law of nature, but you don't see Jesus taking that one lying down. And again, you are gravely misunderstanding SteubieU and I regarding the nature of the Trinity. The Father is not the Son. The Father is one with the Spirit and the Son, but not the same person.

Sure, I understand this, but the usage they are used in are not found in the Bible. Since we are talking about the same person, using the same source, then we must use it on the same premise. I cannot use Pres. Hinkley as a source, because you do not recognize him as a prophet, nor will I accept your use of Man's terms because I do not recognize them as from the Lord.

Actually, "nature" and "being" are both biblical terms, used to describe God. But that is really beside the point, because the writers and prophets didn't write in English. The words we use are translations of those words, and sometimes words that are not found in our English translations can do a good job at relating truth.

It's 'assumed'!? By who? Where in those scriptures does it say anything about Christ not needing a body? He had to have a body to atone for our sins, or else how could we be saved? Those verses simply explain what happened, nothing about not needing a body.

It's assumed by the apostle Paul. And I agree that the Son needed a body to carry out the atonement. But God was under no obligation to provide any sort of atonement; it was His choice. And praise God for that love!

The Son chose to take on a body, but he didn't have to. It wasn't a necessary part of his own growth and development, in other words, as in LDS theology. It was his choice. Are there any verses you can share with us about the Son needing a body for his own sake?

More in a bit. Good questions, I enjoy it when people make me think really hard!

[William the Conqueror]

It's 'assumed'!? By who? Where in those scriptures does it say anything about Christ not needing a body? He had to have a body to atone for our sins, or else how could we be saved? Those verses simply explain what happened, nothing about not needing a body.

It's assumed by the apostle Paul. And I agree that the Son needed a body to carry out the atonement. But God was under no obligation to provide any sort of atonement; it was His choice. And praise God for that love!

The Son chose to take on a body, but he didn't have to. It wasn't a necessary part of his own growth and development, in other words, as in LDS theology. It was his choice. Are there any verses you can share with us about the Son needing a body for his own sake?

More in a bit. Good questions, I enjoy it when people make me think really hard!

Good explanation Rhyno. There is also the view that the Angel of the Lord who appeared to Abraham at the Oaks of Mamre, and who appeared to Minoah, Samson's father as well as his mother, who wrestled with Jacob, and in other instances in the OT which I cannot recall is also the Second Person of the Trinity.

This view is that Jesus is the Eternal Son of God from eternity past as well as eternity future. Whether this Second Person of the Trinity had the same physical facial and body features in the OT appearances as Jesus in the NT I don't know.

Remember what Minoah said in Judges to his wife, '...we have seen God and we must surely die...' after God went up and disappeared in the fire.

Minoah was not mistaken about who he saw and talked to.