Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Jesus vs Jesus Debate


Proverbs

Recommended Posts

Nothing; it's an excuse for proclaiming exclusion of someone else, nothing more.

Like the Great Apostasy?

I disagree. There is more disagreement on the nature of man and god between LDS and non-LDS then there is on the nature of the Godhead itself. The question is, what kind of unity is the unity of the Godhead? We're agreed that there are three and those three are one. It's just a difference in how that one-ness is defined.

The natures of man and God respectively are inextricably bound to the beliefs about the Godhead in both our faiths. The LDS Godhead allows (perhaps even demands) belief that God and man are the same species, albeit at different levels of progression and maturity. The mainstream Christian Trinity, however, teaches that God is, to use a rather common phrase, "wholly other". God is fundamentally different from man in many ways.

Rhinomelon, you are right, of course.

Your conversion to my version of Christian belief, or mine to yours, would require a wrenching change in faith and perspective.

I acknowledge this, and therefore stand in awe of those people who are still able to convert to LDS despite this barrier.

Despite these differences, however, the commonalities based on belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ and in his role as Savior remain. Surely we can acknowledge this shared devotion

And you are obviously right for saying that I am right :P Kidding...

Like you, I stand in awe of those who can convert to LDS, and likewise I stand in greater awe of those who convert out of the LDS church into mainstream Christianity. Given the social dynamics of the closely knit LDS community, I think it is usually harder to convert out of the LDS church than into it. Just my opinion though.

And I agree that there are commonalities. But how many of these commonalities are actual agreement, and how many are simply a matter of semantics, using the same words to describe very different beliefs and concepts? That is a more complicated issue, I think. For example, what about the concept of "church"? Do we believe in different "churches"? A church, quite simply, is just the community of people who follow Christ, after all. What makes your church true and mine apostate? These are more rhetorical questions than anything, by the way.

But the fact that Christ is taught about and spoken of in the LDS church is one fact that keeps me from simply saying (as some unfortunately do) that being a Mormon automatically means one is bereft of salvation. I believe that wherever there is access to Jesus and the Bible, there is hope for salvation, because the Holy Spirit works through these things. I just believe that there is more baggage and confusion inherent in the LDS church that can keep people away from the simplicity and grace of the gospel. Again, this is just my thinking on the subject.

Take care, everyone <_<

Link to comment

Rhinomelon wrote (among other things):

I just believe that there is more baggage and confusion inherent in the LDS church that can keep people away from the simplicity and grace of the gospel.

Here is where we part company, I suppose (but I hope gracefully), since I believe that the LDS teachings have cleared away all the baggage and confusion of centuries of argumentation in the Christian world, leaving a concise, simple teaching as Jesus himself articulated it.

Beowulf

Link to comment
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.

OK then, can you explain to me how they are separate, but not separate? Christ has a physical body, a body that is like ours (save that it is a resurrected body, but there are many who have a resurrected body as well). Since Christ has this body, yet the Father does not, how can they not be separate as your body is separate from mine? You and I are one as followers of Chirst, but we are indeed separate.

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."

Why then did the Savior say that the HG could not come unless he went away?

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.

Yes, and Mary and the Beloved Disciple were separte beings from Christ, just as the Father and the HG are.

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.

Yes, this is known as the G-dhead. One can speak in behalf of the other, their goals and purposes are the same. They all speak the same accord.

The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is not the Father.

That's exactly what I'm saying. However, if they cannot be separate - as you and I are - then the Father would be the Son.

Each of them is co-equal, co-eternal, and worthy of all worship.

Why did the Savior say that the Father was greater than him? Also, he clearly stated that we are to worship the Father.

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.

Just as you are together with your family, but how does this mean they are not separate beings. Why can't they be together in purpose, action, deed, glory, and power but not separate beings? My wife and I are together as parents, but definately separate.

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.

Indeed, but the statue of King David is not an 'express', or exact, image of David as Christ is of the Father.

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?

First of all, this 'spirit wife' is not doctrine, nor is it backed by scripture, so we need not go there, second, if my son is born in my image, it doesn't mean he supposed to have my set of golf clubs with him when he comes out. Our having a body like our Father's, doesn't mean it must automatically be resurrected. That is something that happens to the body after death. Just as my son has a body like mine, it still must grow, mature, and go through the changes of puberty. Our body being like the Father's, means that it too can grow and mature into what he now has - a resurrected one.

Link to comment

Thanks for the post, Gordon, more good questions. I don't know if I'll be able to get to them today, as work is quite busy. Take care <_<

Here is where we part company, I suppose (but I hope gracefully), since I believe that the LDS teachings have cleared away all the baggage and confusion of centuries of argumentation in the Christian world, leaving a concise, simple teaching as Jesus himself articulated it.

And quickly here. A very gracious acknowledgment of the current state of affairs between our two faiths. Obviously we see things differently :P

Link to comment
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.

If he had chosen not to send his Son down, then we would have been lost forever. Also, that would have made him a liar, for he promised the first man and woman that he would provide a way for them to return. The only way was to send the Son, and what the Lord says must come to pass.

Having a body is not essential to Who the Son is.

Yes it is, because being the Savior IS who the Son is, and to be the Savior, he had to have atoned for our sins - he couldn't do that without a body.

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?

Being in the 'form' is more similar to your King David statue analogy. Christ was in the form of the Father, as we all were before being born. The statements of Christ being just like his Father, or the express image related to when Jesus already had his body. The statement by Paul refered to Jesus before he was born, when he had only his spirit body.

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.

You're right, Jesus was born with the power of G-d, which we were not. However, Jesus does not claim us to be the express image of Him, but He the express image of the Father. We are, however, able to obtain all the Glory that they have, thus being just like them.

He bears the stamp of God's nature because He is divine, not because of His human body.

It's both.

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.

Where does it state there will be no more revealation? In fact, it states just the opposite (Rev. 14:6). Yes, the Gospel - not revealations - is complete with Christ, because he is the Gospel. Why would revealing his Gospel end? Do we need an end to hearing it? Hasn't he revealed it throughout history, even after he revealed it before? If some of it becomes lost, wouldn't he reveal it again? If some of it does not apply to us anymore, shouldn't that be revealed (see the Law of Moses not applying anymore, of the Gospel not being preached to the Gentiles...).

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.

If the Father poured out life to the Son, then the Son didn't have life before that - regardless of time. You have to understand, that 'in the beginning', refers to OUR beginning of existence as we know it. As far as we are concerned, Christ has always been our Savior. And what, exactly, do you mean by 'begotten'?

Link to comment
Rhinomelon wrote (among other things):
I just believe that there is more baggage and confusion inherent in the LDS church that can keep people away from the simplicity and grace of the gospel.

Here is where we part company, I suppose (but I hope gracefully), since I believe that the LDS teachings have cleared away all the baggage and confusion of centuries of argumentation in the Christian world, leaving a concise, simple teaching as Jesus himself articulated it.

Beowulf

But they don't really, and just add a new set of considerations into the mix... in one sense. To a person who first hears about Christ and wants to figure out what is true about Him and what is not true, the LDS Church does not answer those questions at all... just gives him more questions.

And, in the other sense, they don't really either... at least in the Catholic view, all of the things we need to know have been revealed, and, insofar as we need to understand them for our salvation, they have been explained and clarified by the Catholic Church.

Link to comment

If he had chosed not to send his Son down, then we would have been lost forever.  Also, that would have made him a liar, for he promised the first man and woman that he would provide a way for them to return.  The only way was to send the Son, and what the Lord says must come to pass.

Having a body is not essential to Who the Son is.

Yes it is, because being the Savior IS who the Son is, and to be the Savior, he had to have atoned for our sins - he couldn't do that without a body.

I'm going to address these points first.

I don't disagree that the Son coming to earth was necessary for us, but my point is that it was not necessary for Him. I don't disagree that once God made the promise to Adam and Eve, He bound Himself to that promise... my point is that He never had to make that promise in the first place.

"Savior" is NOT Who the Son is. The Son is the Son of the Father, He is God Almighty, eternal, transcendent, omnipotent, omniscient. That is Who the Son is. "Savior" is Who He becomes by His Incarnation. To be the Son, He does not need to come down to earth, He just needs to be with the Father. To be Jesus, the Christ, the Savior, He needs to come to earth. That is what makes the Incarnation of the Son so amazing and spectacular: He didn't have to do it.

By the way, I disagree that God could not have atoned for our sins in any other way, but I do think that there was not a more fitting way, a more perfect and revealing way that He could have done it (which is why He did it the way He did).

Link to comment
Did the rejected in Matthew 7 not believe in Jesus Christ?

"22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

They had a belief in Christ, yet what prevented them from receiving Salvation from the Savior?

Your answer is kind of a non answer wrapped around a vague accusation. You do not come out and say what it is that prevents the Latter-day Saints from grace and salvation through the atonement, but you instead provide a scripture that indicates not everyone who professes to do works in Christs name are truly known by him.

Let's look at that scripture with more context:

The first verse defines who the Lord is referring to. Those who verbally profess to know Him but that do not do the will of the Father in Heaven. The second verse describes their claim to have done miracles or performed things for a sign that they believed in him. These are not works of individual private faith but public performances designed to show piety, when as we learn in the third verse they are in reality working iniquity.

Matthew 7:21
Link to comment
With the Son. If you want a specific location, forget it. I have trouble enough knowing where my own mother is half the time! :P

I guess I am looking for a specific location, if the Father does not have a body, but the Father is the Son.

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

I'm not trying to say that Christ isn't different from us, he is. What I am saying, is that how he gained his body, how he became a man, is the same as us, so refering to the Son becoming a man simply refers to his being born.

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.

2 Thess. 2:3-4, Isa. 60:2, Acts 20:29-30, Amos 8:11-12 - those are some.

What exactly are you refering to by eternal progression? Are you looking for something that states we will create are own worlds, or something?

D&C 132:19-21, Rom. 8:14-18, Rev. 3:21, also a statement by a prophet, that as man is, God once was, and as God is man may become.

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.

I already refered to the scripture SteubieU gave, Heb. 1:1-3, in which it states the 'express', or exact image.

Yes, the attributes that you state are in the likeness of G-d, but they have nothing to do with image. You and I can both love our families, but you wouldn't say we have the same image. My son looks like me, I doubt you do. There is nothing in the Bible that sates G-d doesn't have a body, and when modern revealation specifically states that he does, it is even more affirmed by the fact that it does not contradict the Bible, but is consistent. If the Bible clearly stated that the Father does not have a body, and never will, yet LDS scripture stated otherwise, then you would have an arguement that was legitimentally on sound doctrine, however, that is not the case.

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.

His ascension does nothing to break the laws of gravity. Does a plan fly? How? Well, there must be more air pressure below the plane than above, which is possible by making the air-flow above the wing go by faster, which creates a vaccum (this is why windows in a tornado, or hurricane usually blow out). All the Lord has to do his either create a vaccum above him, or create more air pressure below him. If he can command the elements to create us and the earth, I'm sure this would be a simple task.

The Father is not the Son. The Father is one with the Spirit and the Son, but not the same person.

Yes, the G-dhead - one in purpose, yet separate. You and I can be one in thought or deed, but we are separate.

Actually, "nature" and "being" are both biblical terms, used to describe God.

I think, then, that we need to be on the same premise concerning the exact meaning of these words, and their usage.

But God was under no obligation to provide any sort of atonement; it was His choice. And praise God for that love!

Yes he was, because he promised he would, and if he didn't, he would have been a liar, which G-d cannot be.

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?

Being the Savior is who he is, if he didn't atone for us, then he wouldn't be the Savior/Redeemer, meaning he failed to be. He had to Redeem us to be who he was - the Savior, and he had to have a body to be crucified.

Link to comment
First, regarding the above. Can you tell me exactly where Jesus' body is now, and back it up with Scripture?

Does it matter what scripture I use?

D&C 130:22 states that he has it at the present, which is heaven. Also with Acts 1:9-11 there is no mention that during the time he leaves and when he returns that he will loose his body, so why assume it? D&C 130:2

Second, can you find one verse for each unique LDS doctrine that sums up that doctrine without cross-referencing other verses? Specific examples might include the Great Apostasy, eternal progression, the necessity of temple marriage for exaltation, etc. Since apparently cross-referencing is not allowed for mainstream Christians wanting to explain their doctrine, perhaps you could set the example here.

D&C 131:1-3. I already gave you some scripture on the Apostasy and Eternal Progression.

And the third question bounces off the above statement. Given that we have linked to and posted a great deal of the biblical basis for our beliefs, do you have any references that might suggest that the Bible we are talking about did not come from God, either directly or through his apostles and prophets?

Yes, it absolutely did. The scriptures are directly from the Lord, so what is found within pertains to the Gospel. What I was refering to, was that if the Lord didn't specifically say it - whether it be from him, his prophets/apostles, or given in scripture, then it is not truth. That is why I ask for specific scripture in the Bible, because if it isn't there, then you cannot say it is truth. Coming up with conclusions or interpretations from parts stated in the Bible that reference something else is not doctrine nor gospel.

Link to comment
You're attempting to equate the apostasy with the word games of the "other Jesus"? 

I can't agree with that comparison at all...

I wouldn't think so, but why not? After all, both concepts are offensive to a large degree, both involve differing interpretations of the same history, both are based in our respective faith traditions ( over against the contrary claims of the other tradition).

The only big difference is that the Great Apostasy is official LDS doctrine, while the "different Jesus" argument is not official mainstream Christian doctrine in and of itself, but is a logical outgrowth of mainstream doctrinal claims.

Does it matter what scripture I use?

D&C 130:22 states that he has it at the present, which is heaven. Also with Acts 1:9-11 there is not mention that during the time he leaves and when he returns that he will loose his body, so why assume it? D&C 130:2

That's it? I was thinking of saying "heaven", but you seemed to want a more specific location, like, I dunno, Kolob or something. Jesus' body is in heaven, but he is not bound by that body. Otherwise, Jesus was lying when he told his followers, "wherever two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them".

And just for the sake of making my earlier point, none of the references you point to that refer to eternal progression teach the whole thing in its entirety. And correct me if I'm wrong, but none of those references refer to God the Father once being a man; rather, they only state that God currently has a body. And the phrase "eternal progression" itself is not found in the LDS Quad. LDS theology just came up with a manmade name for the concepts taught in extra-scriptural prophetic language.

All this is not to say that your beliefs are automatically wrong, per se. However, it is to say that you are holding up mainstream Christian theology to an impossible standard that even the LDS church cannot live up to. The LDS church cannot provide verses that lay out the whole idea of eternal progression, just as I cannot point to one verse that explains the whole doctrine of the Trinity. Both doctrines are gleaned from various parts of revelation, and depend on extra-scriptural summaries to bring it all together. And since the term "eternal progression" is not found in the LDS canon, but is still used by the LDS faithful to describe current LDS teaching, it shouldn't be illegal that mainstream Christians likewise use the term "trinity" for describing the Christian view of God.

More later, probably tomorrow. Take care, everyone :P

Link to comment
The only big difference is that the Great Apostasy is official LDS doctrine, while the "different Jesus" argument is not official mainstream Christian doctrine in and of itself, but is a logical outgrowth of mainstream doctrinal claims.

The "other Jesus" is mainly a large word game to explain away LDS Christianity.

EDIT: You should understand that I live in a part of the country where the Bible is used liberally to beat your neighbor about the head and shoulders and explain why "everyone else" is going to Hell.

We have several Baptist offshoots here who teach that only their congregations can go to Heaven... cool.gif

Link to comment
I don't disagree that the Son coming to earth was necessary for us, but my point is that it was not necessary for Him. I don't disagree that once God made the promise to Adam and Eve, He bound Himself to that promise... my point is that He never had to make that promise in the first place.

As you state it, yes, he didn't have to make that promise. However, as has been revealed, the Plan of Salvation was revealed to use before we even agreed to come to earth, and a stipulation of that plan required a Redeemer, so as we agreed to that plan, the Father was bound.

"Savior" is NOT Who the Son is. The Son is the Son of the Father, He is God Almighty, eternal, transcendent, omnipotent, omniscient. That is Who the Son is. "Savior" is Who He becomes by His Incarnation. To be the Son, He does not need to come down to earth, He just needs to be with the Father. To be Jesus, the Christ, the Savior, He needs to come to earth. That is what makes the Incarnation of the Son so amazing and spectacular: He didn't have to do it.

He is the same yesterday, today, and forever, so he has always been the Savior. As I stated above, Christ did not have to be our Savior - modern revealation states that Lucifer offered himself to be the savior - albeit for selfish reasons. Christ chose to be the savior, and this was when we were introduced with the Plan of Salvation, to which we agreed upon.

By the way, I disagree that God could not have atoned for our sins in any other way, but I do think that there was not a more fitting way, a more perfect and revealing way that He could have done it (which is why He did it the way He did).

Why, then, did Jesus ask the Father if there be any other way let it be, when he was in the Garden?

Where, anywhere, does it state in the Bible that there could have been another way. Why assume?

Link to comment

As you state it, yes, he didn't have to make that promise. However, as has been revealed, the Plan of Salvation was revealed to use before we even agreed to come to earth, and a stipulation of that plan required a Redeemer, so as we agreed to that plan, the Father was bound.

He is the same yesterday, today, and forever, so he has always been the Savior. As I stated above, Christ did not have to be our Savior - modern revealation states that Lucifer offered himself to be the savior - albeit for selfish reasons. Christ chose to be the savior, and this was when we were introduced with the Plan of Salvation, to which we agreed upon.

Why, then, did Jesus ask the Father if there be any other way let it be, when he was in the Garden?

Where, anywhere, does it state in the Bible that there could have been another way. Why assume?

We disagree that there was even an "us" before we came to earth, so obviously we disagree that God's plan was revealed to us before our birth.

By the way, this raises another question for me. If we were in Heaven with God, why would some of us agree to come to earth in bodies and environments in which we would not be LDS?

It says, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever," but that does not mean that He is absolutely the same. You would even agree that He did not have a resurrected body before He came to earth, wouldn't you (I think you would anyway, I don't know enough about LDS theology... grr). There is some change in Him... but if you read that passage you will see that, in context, what you assert is not what the text is asserting.

Because He was scared. But His fear was not as important to Him as His obedience and the Redemption in the way that God the Father had planned was the most fitting way for Him to do it.

You assumed as well by saying that there could not have been another way. If anything, according to you, we should stay silent. But of course, I don't think that something has to be explicitly revealed for it to be important.

Link to comment
EDIT: You should understand that I live in a part of the country where the Bible is used liberally to beat your neighbor about the head and shoulders and explain why "everyone else" is going to Hell.

We have several Baptist offshoots here who teach that only their congregations can go to Heaven...  cool.gif

Gotcha. That would put a damper on things :P From my perspective, I've almost all my life in LDS areas, in which the Great Apostasy figures prominently in relationship of all kinds. I've been called a "hireling of Satan" when I talked about my early dreams of entering the ministry, and had my church referred to as an apostate gathering with little or no truth. I realize that this is generally the LDS perspective, but it could have been addressed more delicately when I was in high school <_< Likewise, it is a mainstream Christian perspective that radically different doctrines and teachings about Jesus qualify for the moniker "different Jesus", although that statement can likewise be addressed much more delicately, if at all.

Just my thinking. Take care, everyone :unsure:

Link to comment
That's it? I was thinking of saying "heaven", but you seemed to want a more specific location, like, I dunno, Kolob or something.

No, I was asking for a specific location in heaven. If Christ has a body, but the Father does not, and the Father is the Son, then I wanted to know where the Son puts the body when he is the Father.

Jesus' body is in heaven, but he is not bound by that body. Otherwise, Jesus was lying when he told his followers, "wherever two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them".

He is not 'bound' by his body, meaning his body doesn't bind him to anything or anywhere, but his body is with his always. The HG is a G-d, a member of the G-dhead, and when one speaks, they speak for the other, so when the HG speaks, it might as well be Christ speaking. Just as Christ spoke for the Father, it might as well have been the Father speaking. Even though the Father wasn't there, he would say that he was present where the Son was. Plus, the HG brings us to the Father and the Son.

And just for the sake of making my earlier point, none of the references you point to that refer to eternal progression teach the whole thing in its entirety. And correct me if I'm wrong, but none of those references refer to God the Father once being a man; rather, they only state that God currently has a body. And the phrase "eternal progression" itself is not found in the LDS Quad. LDS theology just came up with a manmade name for the concepts taught in extra-scriptural prophetic language.

Then what, exactly, are you refering to by the term eternal progression. I'm not simply calling you on the term 'trinity', but on exactly what is stated, as doctrine, that the term 'trinity' refers to. I gave scripture that exactly states what the term 'eternal progression' refers to. As to the reference of the Father once being a man, that came directly from a prophet of G-d, who had the authority to speak for Him. It would be the same as if Paul, himself, stated it.

The LDS church cannot provide verses that lay out the whole idea of eternal progression.

Yes, it can. Unless you are refering to something else than I understand it to be.

Link to comment

No, I was asking for a specific location in heaven.  If Christ has a body, but the Father does not, and the Father is the Son, then I wanted to know where the Son puts the body when he is the Father.

Since you are asking this question, it is obvious that you still don't understand what we mean when we say the Trinity. Not criticizing, but just saying, you still don't understand us.

In other words, you just stated something, ie., "and the Father is the Son" that we do not believe.

Link to comment
By the way, this raises another question for me. If we were in Heaven with God, why would some of us agree to come to earth in bodies and environments in which we would not be LDS?

I responded to your post, but I got kicked off the internet and lost it, so I will try again.

I don't know why one chooses, or accepts, to come here without a full knowledge of the Gospel, there could be many reasons. Some might have come knowing they would do great things in life, but would be given the opportunity to accept the Gospel in the next life. Others might have known they would be led to it by other means during their lives. Perhaps some knew they would grow more by finding it through other ways. Who knows all the reasons, and why?

It says, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever," but that does not mean that He is absolutely the same. You would even agree that He did not have a resurrected body before He came to earth, wouldn't you (I think you would anyway, I don't know enough about LDS theology... grr). There is some change in Him... but if you read that passage you will see that, in context, what you assert is not what the text is asserting.

How am I using this scripture out of text? It refers the to Gospel of Christ, his doctrine, the Word which was Christ and which was in the beginning with G-d. No, he didn't have a resurrected body, or any body, before. However, the Word - Him - was already set. Just as Jeremiah was ordained to be a prophet before he was born, so was Jesus ordained to be the Savior. He always has been, and always will be. Just as you and I are who we are, children of G-d, before we were born, that doesn't change by gaining a body.

Because He was scared. But His fear was not as important to Him as His obedience and the Redemption in the way that God the Father had planned was the most fitting way for Him to do it.

Do you really think that the Father would not have mercy to grant the request of Jesus for another way if there was one? Why would the Father allow the Greatest of all Mankind to suffer so great if there was another way? The Atonement wasn't for Christ, it was for us. There was nothing that Christ needed to learn from it - it wasn't for him.

You assumed as well by saying that there could not have been another way. If anything, according to you, we should stay silent. But of course, I don't think that something has to be explicitly revealed for it to be important.

Can you think of another way? I can't.

Link to comment
Since you are asking this question, it is obvious that you still don't understand what we mean when we say the Trinity. Not criticizing, but just saying, you still don't understand us.

In other words, you just stated something, ie., "and the Father is the Son" that we do not believe.

I'm trying to get you to explain what it actually means. An explaination that is easily understood, since that is what the Gospel is meant to be. I don't understand how they cannot be separate beings, but be the same, yet not the same. Explain, so that I can understand.

Link to comment

I'm trying to get you to explain what it actually means. An explaination that is easily understood, since that is what the Gospel is meant to be. I don't understand how they cannot be separate beings, but be the same, yet not the same. Explain, so that I can understand.

There are some things in LDS that are not easy to understand at all... every religion has things that, when you look deeper into them, are difficult to understand.

I think it is the untruths about the mainstream teaching of God that you have heard that are making you not able to understand. So... pretend you don't know anything about God and you are coming to a Catholic inquirers class. Here is how I would explain it.

If God is God, He is going to be more than we can understand. If God was fully understandable, than He wouldn't be God. God is a mystery, which means although we cannot understand it all, we can understand a lot about Him.

There is one God. Only one God, and He is Almighty, omniscient, omnipotent. He is eternal, has no beginning or end, He has always existed, and there was never a point at which He did not exist. There is nothing before Him, nothing brings Him into being, He is before all else that is. THere is no one prior to God to whom God can attribute His existence. God is ONE: There is only one divinity and there cannot be any more, because divinity is the absolute perfection of goodness, beauty, and truth. If there was more that God did not have, than He would not be God. God is absolute perfection. God is outside of time, He created time for creatures who have a material creation.

This God has revealed that He is three Persons. They are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is begotten of the Son in eternity. That means that you can't say that the Father is "prior" to the Son, nor can you say that there is a time when the Son did not exist. Yet, in some way, the Son has a relationship of Son to the Father. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Once again, you can't say that the Father and Son are "prior" to the H.S., nor can you say there is a time when the Holy Spirit did not exist.

So, He is one because of WHAT He is, He is three because of WHO He is: The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are all God, but there is not three gods but one God. Yet the Father IS NOT the Son, they are distinct persons. The Son IS NOT the Holy Spirit, they are distinct persons. The Holy Spirit IS NOT the Father, they are distinct persons.

Yet they are not separate from one another as two people are separate from one another. I have a girlfriend, and we can either be together or separate. If one person of God is somewhere, the other two persons are there as well. It is like if my girlfriend and I went everywhere and did everything together. We would be distinct persons, but we would never separate from one another.

This does not mean that the Father IS THE Son, only that whereever the Son is, the Father is there too.

As we have said, God is one as well... but He is not one in the same way that He is three. God

Link to comment

LDS would agree that God has always been. That means all three personages of the Godhead, who ARE one God, as our Book of Mormon and our prophets teach, although the way we try to explain their individual personages when we get into specifics does sometimes cause some confusion. In their perfect unity, I think we could also agree that they are all always together -- although LDS do teach that the Father withdrew His spirit from His Son at one point on the cross, to make the atonement complete.

That togetherness thing might be worthy of a new thread. If God's influence and his omniscience, is everywhere, although not His body of course is not, then of course He is together with the Son wherever the Son might go, and the Spirit, too.

How close do you have to be to someone to be considered together? In the same body, the same room, the same country, the same universe?

Link to comment
Then what, exactly, are you refering to by the term eternal progression.

The LDS belief that God the Father was once a man on another planet, who by following the commands of his God became a God himself, and now makes a way for human beings to become Gods themselves just like He is. Basically, what Lorenzo Snow's couplet says. Unfortunately, the couplet is not official LDS Scripture, so it cannot be used to summarize LDS belief using your criteria you are applying to mainstream Christianity.

More in a bit. Take care, everyone :P

Link to comment

Rhino, can you think of any other way of explaining the Trinity to Gordon? I thought that he got the distinction of persons, but his post (two previous on this thread) shows that he does not. I tried to give an all encompasing run down on the Trinity, but I am afraid it might be too much to take in.

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...