Jesus vs Jesus Debate

[rhinomelon]

As far as the Trinity goes, maybe an analogy would help. Now, keep in mind that all analogies about God ultimately fall short in some way, but hopefully this one will give you some kind of visual for the Trinity concept.

Think about H2O. It's the same chemical formula, but it can exist in three states: ice, water, and steam. So equate the chemical makeup with the nature of deity. The nature of deity can exist simultaneously in three forms. Water (the Father), ice (the Son), and steam (the Holy Spirit).

Of course, the weakness in this analogy is that with water, ice changes into water then into steam and back again, which is not like the Trinity where the Persons do not switch places, i.e. the Father does not change into the Son or the Spirit, but remains the Father constantly, etc.

Hopefully this will help a little bit. Take care, everyone

EDIT: I posted this before I saw your last post. We're on the same wavelength or something!

[SteubieU]

There are three good analogies for the Trinity, and all of them have strengths and weaknesses, so I will post them all. The strengths are things that mainstreamers would agree with, the weaknesses are things that mainstreamers would disagree with.

The first, the one that Rhinomelon gave is the analogy of water, steam, and ice.

Strength: Affirms that there is only one substance, one nature in God.

Weakness: Would also mean that the Father is the Son is the Holy Spirit, just in a different state.

The second is the analogy used by St. Patrick, the analogy of the shamrock.

Strength: Affirms that there are three distinctions, affirms that they each possess the same nature, affirms that they are united.

Weakness: Would also mean that each of the Persons of the Trinity does not possess the fullness of the divinity because a shamrock is not only one leaf.

The third analogy is that of three kings ruling the same nation.

Strength: Affirms that they are equal in every way, share the same mission, etc. Also affirms that they are different persons.

Weakness: Each only possesses a third of the power and they would not be inseparable in the way that Christians understand the Trinity. Idea of there being "one nature" is ambiguous.

[Magyar]

The last analogy comes closest to the LDS conception of God. However, if their power is that of absolute love, then there is no dilution of it in the sharing.

[rhinomelon]

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.

If he's always been the Savior (biblically speaking), then was he the savior before he was chosen to be the savior, over Satan's similar desire?

Just as Jeremiah was ordained to be a prophet before he was born, so was Jesus ordained to be the Savior.

Unfortunately, there are no scriptures that refer to people knowing God before they were born. There are only Scriptures referring to God knowing people, which, considering He is omniscient, wouldn't be much of a problem.

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 separate persons within the one divine Being. One person can have a body, while the other two do not. Simply because the Son took on flesh and blood, does not mean the Father has a body.

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

Good question. When one looks at how the various Persons of the Trinity interact and cooperate in the economy of salvation, this becomes more clear. The role of the Son was, in part, to inaugurate the church and the new people of God. The Spirit then came when this was accomplished. The Spirit is the way God interacts with the followers of Christ in the Church.

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

Jesus stated that the Father was greater because, in his present incarnated state, he was a human being, and God was greater than he was. And he did tell people to worship the Father; however, you are forgetting that Christ himself accepted worship on several occasions, most notably with Thomas. If Jesus was accepting worship from Thomas, but wasn't worthy to receive it, then he would be guilty of promoting idolatry. If Jesus was indeed perfect (as we both believe) than it follows that Jesus accepting worship was indeed right and true. We can worship the Father and the Son, according to this.

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.

Where in Scripture does it state that we will inherit the glory of the Father? Instead, are we not co-heirs of what Christ has? Namely, perfect humanity?

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.

This refers to the beginning of time as well. The Son has always proceeded from the Father. As time does not apply before Creation, it is quite easy to see how the Son could proceed eternally from the Father.

My son looks like me, I doubt you do.

For your son's sake, I hope not More later, take care, everyone

[Magyar]

Heaven is not a democracy. The plan was always for Jesus to become the Savior. Satan's plan was never a viable option, but an unauthorized rebellion doomed from the beginning. The Lord would never have accepted it as the blueprint for mortality even if all his children had opted for it. It defies logic to think otherwise. That He should even consider giving His glory to such an unworthy one as that and turn the laws of heaven upside down!

Also note, that same scripture that says we will be joint-heirs with Christ, begins with noting that we will be heirs of God. Why? Because we are the sons (and daughters) of God.

[Herb]

Please forgive me for being a bit rusty at this. I've attempted to read over all the previous posts to come with anything I thought might contribute or to point out things I thought were lacking.

First, the scripture in which Jesus tells his apostles not to be afraid, that a spirit had not flesh and bone. Most LDS know this to be the defining characteristics of a resurrected being, though here it was used to exclude God, said to be of spirit from having a body. To make such an exclusion, a person would also have to believe that Jesus is not spirit. There is no exclusionary clause to it, no "except for me" clause. So either Jesus is saying he didn't have a spirit, or he meant something else such as to let the apostles know that He wasn't a ghost or "spirit."

Secondly, the idea of the "Trinity" being expressed in physical terms. It can't be and to do so is futile. According to the same people who believe in the Trinity, God is omnipresent. He's everywhere! The water metaphor, though I tought it a good attempt, falis cause there is an obvious border to what it and isn't steam, liquid, or ice. A clover fails because each leaf and the stem are distinct. It also fails when the scriptures speak of Jesus being alone on the cross, or in any movement of God.

This speaks also to the separation of beings in the Trinity. You cannot be "separate" or "distinct" without definition. To take a whole and say "This part is God" or "This part is Jesus" inherently means that there is something unique about that part which distinguishes it from the other parts.

Thirdly, what happened to Jesus body? There isn't a scripture that says he put it in storage until He comes back and there's no reason to believe that the early followers believed that He didn't keep it. Quite the opposite, it was written that the men who asceneded to Heaven with Jesus told the poeple that Jesus would return in the same manner. That scriptures state that he could be in the heart of people need not refer to His spirit, but the Spirit. Indeed if they are the same in any capacity, then for the Spirit to act for Jesus is well within the realm of possibility.

[rhinomelon]

I just had a nice big long post, and the computer ate it.

I'll have to get to it tomorrow. Anyway, nice to hear from you, Herb. It's been a while!

[Herb]

If I ate as well as my comp, I'd be big and slow...wait a minute..I am! Arghhhh!

Thanks, it's good to see you're still around.

[Magyar]

I just had a nice big long post, and the computer ate it.

I'll have to get to it tomorrow. Anyway, nice to hear from you, Herb. It's been a while!

Don't you hate that? In my former life as a newswriter, I had that happen once in a while just as I was finishing a story. At those moments, I would have emptied my wallet for a device that could inflict genuine pain upon computer circuits.

[rhinomelon]

Okay, I have a few minutes, so let's try this again. "Rhinomelon putting foot in mouth" take two, and.....action!

To make such an exclusion, a person would also have to believe that Jesus is not spirit. There is no exclusionary clause to it, no "except for me" clause. So either Jesus is saying he didn't have a spirit, or he meant something else such as to let the apostles know that He wasn't a ghost or "spirit."

I think I'm following the reasoning here, but could you flesh it out a bit for me? One thing I was thinking about yesterday was about whether human beings are spirits, or if human beings only have spirits. I don't believe that the Bible states anywhere that we are spirits; rather, we are flesh and blood people who have spirits. The Bible does state that God is a spirit, which does not automatically mean He has a body.

Secondly, the idea of the "Trinity" being expressed in physical terms. It can't be and to do so is futile.

I agree! But that doesn't mean that the Trinity is therefore a pointless, incomprehensible view of God. There are a great many things that we don't understand about the world we live in; is it really that unexpected that we can't fully understand the Creator of it?

This speaks also to the separation of beings in the Trinity. You cannot be "separate" or "distinct" without definition. To take a whole and say "This part is God" or "This part is Jesus" inherently means that there is something unique about that part which distinguishes it from the other parts.

Agreed. The distinction is between the Persons within the Trinity. The Father is not the Son is not the Spirit, etc. But together they are God, one nature.

Thirdly, what happened to Jesus body? There isn't a scripture that says he put it in storage until He comes back and there's no reason to believe that the early followers believed that He didn't keep it. Quite the opposite, it was written that the men who asceneded to Heaven with Jesus told the poeple that Jesus would return in the same manner. That scriptures state that he could be in the heart of people need not refer to His spirit, but the Spirit. Indeed if they are the same in any capacity, then for the Spirit to act for Jesus is well within the realm of possibility.

I agree with everything up to the last two sentences. Why make the assumption that when the Bible refers to Jesus, it doesn't mean Jesus? Jesus did say that he would be in the midst of any group that called upon his name. This would pose a problem for an embodied being, but not for an omnipresent spirit.

Just my thoughts. Man, you guys missed out. In yesterday's now-long-digested post, I completely proved the Trinity from the Bible and explained it in an undeniably simple and understandable way. But it got deleted, and I can't remember how I did it now...

Take care, everyone. I'll try to check back on this thread after lunch sometime.

[Herb]

Just my thoughts. Man, you guys missed out. In yesterday's now-long-digested post, I completely proved the Trinity from the Bible and explained it in an undeniably simple and understandable way. But it got deleted, and I can't remember how I did it now... 

This reminds me of when Homer presented Ned with irrefutable proof that God doesn't exist

I think I'm following the reasoning here, but could you flesh it out a bit for me? One thing I was thinking about yesterday was about whether human beings are spirits, or if human beings only have spirits. I don't believe that the Bible states anywhere that we are spirits; rather, we are flesh and blood people who have spirits. The Bible does state that God is a spirit, which does not automatically mean He has a body.

See if this makes sense, my explanations sometimes are lacking.

1)God is Spirit.

2)Jesus is God (not Modalism)

3)Resurrected Jesus tells his apostles that he has a body of "flesh and bone."

4) In same statement says that a "spirit" doesn't have flesh and bone.

If God is only spirit and Jesus meant God by saying spirit, then Jesus cannot be God, else he is lying.

I reject (yes this is subjective) the argument of dualism at this point since there was no deeper discussion of the topic after that statement. 5I believe Jesus must have been referring to something that would have startled or scared the apostles. His distinction wasn't meant as a blanket statement about the nature of God, but as a distinction between Him, a resurrected being, and an unnatural being.

As for that being proof positive that God has a body, I would say that by itself it is not. But I also do not seeing the passage as excluding God from having a body. The interpretation of it in regard to God the Father must be done using other scriptures.

I don't believe that the Bible states anywhere that we are spirits; rather, we are flesh and blood people who have spirits. 

Consider the story of Lazarus and the rich man. Both deceased, both in Sheol, yet both retained their identity.

Why make the assumption that when the Bible refers to Jesus, it doesn't mean Jesus? Jesus did say that he would be in the midst of any group that called upon his name. This would pose a problem for an embodied being, but not for an omnipresent spirit.

First, Jesus did not say any group. His statement was made to His apostles, not to a general audience. People have read it and assumed that it means everyone.

Consider who it was that Jesus appeared to after His ascension, Paul, John, Peter before his inverted crucixion..apostles.

More later hopefully.

[rhinomelon]

This reminds me of when Homer presented Ned with irrefutable proof that God doesn't exist 

While doing his taxes, no less...

See if this makes sense, my explanations sometimes are lacking.

1)God is Spirit.

2)Jesus is God (not Modalism)

3)Resurrected Jesus tells his apostles that he has a body of "flesh and bone."

4) In same statement says that a "spirit" doesn't have flesh and bone.

If God is only spirit and Jesus meant God by saying spirit, then Jesus cannot be God, else he is lying.

I think I see what you're getting at. God is not only spirit, obviously, in the case of Christ. But the incarnation was a completely unique circumstance, unparalleled in history before or since. What made the incarnation so incredible was that God was not a human being by nature, but sovereignly chose to take on that nature in order to effect the redemption of fallen man.

And in the gospels, when Jesus was speaking of God, he was almost always referring to the Father, not himself. So the correlation between John 4:24 and Luke 24:39 would say more about the Father's nature, not his incarnated human nature. In other words, God the Father is spirit, and does not have a body of flesh and bone as Jesus did in the incarnation.

Consider the story of Lazarus and the rich man. Both deceased, both in Sheol, yet both retained their identity.

Exactly. Both retained their humanity, their bodies. The rich man begged Lazarus for some water to cool his tongue, for example. We are not, in essence, spirits. Rather, we are human beings of flesh and blood who have spirits. The Bible speaks differently about man than it does about God in this area.

First, Jesus did not say any group. His statement was made to His apostles, not to a general audience. People have read it and assumed that it means everyone.

His statement was made to the apostles (as were most of his teachings), but that does not mean that it doesn't apply to his later followers. If that were the case, most of Jesus' teachings would be obsolete! Also, while the statement was made to the apostles, the language strongly suggests that this statement did not apply to them alone. "Wherever two or three are gathered in my name". Sounds pretty general to me.

And even if this were the case, given the scattering of the apostles in Acts, Jesus would still have to be present at different gatherings all over the known world, from Thomas in India to Paul in Spain. Not a problem for one who is omnipresent, but a significant problem for one who is bound to a body of flesh and bone.

Consider who it was that Jesus appeared to after His ascension, Paul, John, Peter before his inverted crucixion..apostles.

After his ascension, or after his resurrection? Either way, Christ appeared to those who were not apostles. After his resurrection, Christ appeared to hundreds of people. After his ascension, Christ appeared to Stephen and Ananias, for example. I seem to remember a couple more instances as well. And just out of curiosity, I'm not remembering Christ appearing to Peter or John after the ascension. I could easily be mistaken though. Wouldn't be the first time

Thanks for your thoughts. Take care, everyone

[thesometimesaint]

rhinomelon:

"In other words, God the Father is spirit, and does not have a body of flesh and bone as Jesus did in the incarnation."

So Jesus has something His Father does not have?

"We are not, in essence, spirits. Rather, we are human beings of flesh and blood who have spirits. The Bible speaks differently about man than it does about God in this area."

From the LDS perspective we are Spiritual beings having a Mortal experience.

[Herb]

I think I see what you're getting at. God is not only spirit, obviously, in the case of Christ. But the incarnation was a completely unique circumstance, unparalleled in history before or since. What made the incarnation so incredible was that God was not a human being by nature, but sovereignly chose to take on that nature in order to effect the redemption of fallen man.

And in the gospels, when Jesus was speaking of God, he was almost always referring to the Father, not himself. So the correlation between John 4:24 and Luke 24:39 would say more about the Father's nature, not his incarnated human nature. In other words, God the Father is spirit, and does not have a body of flesh and bone as Jesus did in the incarnation.

I agree that it was a unique event in human history. After all, the power of a god who had to sacrifice a son every couple thousand years would throw doubt on his power.

The difference between our opinions is the meaning of Luke 24:39. Do "spirit" mean the same in both passages. I do not think so based upon what I have previously written. Why do you think that "spirit" would mean the same as in John 4:24?

Exactly. Both retained their humanity, their bodies. The rich man begged Lazarus for some water to cool his tongue, for example. We are not, in essence, spirits. Rather, we are human beings of flesh and blood who have spirits. The Bible speaks differently about man than it does about God in this area.

I disagree about them having bodies. Yes, the rich man wanted water to quench his thirst, but he didn't ask for much water, just what would have been on Lazarus's finger. It might even be said he was so desperately thirsty that any water would have been enough. Yet, if the water was "living water", then a drop certanly would have been more than enough. It was a request of a human spirit

Also, in the story, there is the gulf that separates the two individuals, which Abraham points out keeps them apart. That is, the story's setting was pre-resurrection. To relate that there is a gulf present and that they had bodies would be inconsistent.

[Herb]

Oops! Hit the reply button by accident.

His statement was made to the apostles (as were most of his teachings), but that does not mean that it doesn't apply to his later followers. If that were the case, most of Jesus' teachings would be obsolete! Also, while the statement was made to the apostles, the language strongly suggests that this statement did not apply to them alone. "Wherever two or three are gathered in my name". Sounds pretty general to me.

What I'm saying is that not all of Jesus's teachings, and all that was written about Him by His apostles and disciples, does not necessarily apply to everyone. In the records are conversations between Jesus and others, such as Mary, that have no importance to any one but the two of them.

And even if this were the case, given the scattering of the apostles in Acts, Jesus would still have to be present at different gatherings all over the known world, from Thomas in India to Paul in Spain. Not a problem for one who is omnipresent, but a significant problem for one who is bound to a body of flesh and bone.

Spearated as they were, how often do you suppose 2 or 3 of them came together to pray in His name? Even more complicated, having two or more groups, in different locations, meeting at the exact same time doing this.

After his ascension, or after his resurrection? Either way, Christ appeared to those who were not apostles. After his resurrection, Christ appeared to hundreds of people. After his ascension, Christ appeared to Stephen and Ananias, for example. I seem to remember a couple more instances as well. And just out of curiosity, I'm not remembering Christ appearing to Peter or John after the ascension. I could easily be mistaken though. Wouldn't be the first time

Actually I was thinking of His ascension after His resurrection. My point I was trying to make, though deficiently, was that He appeared in a bodily form. He appeared to John, in Revelation, and to Peter as he was escaping Rome(that's more tradition than anything written).

Have a Great Day!

[rhinomelon]

"In other words, God the Father is spirit, and does not have a body of flesh and bone as Jesus did in the incarnation."

So Jesus has something His Father does not have?

Exactly. What Jesus did was absolutely unprecedented.

"We are not, in essence, spirits. Rather, we are human beings of flesh and blood who have spirits. The Bible speaks differently about man than it does about God in this area."

From the LDS perspective we are Spiritual beings having a Mortal experience.

I agree that is the LDS perspective on the nature of humanity. But I'm seeing a different one espoused in the Bible. We are enfleshed beings who have spirits; we are not spirits who take on flesh.

Any biblical references suggesting otherwise are most welcome, as this is a recent observation of mine and could no doubt use refining and/or correction.

The difference between our opinions is the meaning of Luke 24:39. Do "spirit" mean the same in both passages. I do not think so based upon what I have previously written. Why do you think that "spirit" would mean the same as in John 4:24?

Mostly word study and comparison. One of the best ways to understand what a word means is to see it used and defined in other places. Luke 24:39 seems to provide a startling clear definition for the term "spirit". Another aspect is the omnipresent verses, which pose no problem for spirit with no flesh and bones, but a great deal of problem for an enfleshed body. We've already been discussing a big reference in that area, so without further ado...

I disagree about them having bodies. Yes, the rich man wanted water to quench his thirst, but he didn't ask for much water, just what would have been on Lazarus's finger. It might even be said he was so desperately thirsty that any water would have been enough. Yet, if the water was "living water", then a drop certanly would have been more than enough. It was a request of a human spirit.

But the human spirit does not get thirsty, or need water, or get hot. That's part of being flesh and blood. Lazarus did have a finger with water on it, as well. It just seems you are stretching the plain meaning of the text here a little too far. After all, the parable makes no mention of living water.

LDS interpret all (or at least most ) of the passages speaking of body parts with God as literally referring to a physical body. Why suddenly switch that in this case?

Also, in the story, there is the gulf that separates the two individuals, which Abraham points out keeps them apart. That is, the story's setting was pre-resurrection. To relate that there is a gulf present and that they had bodies would be inconsistent.

See, in mainstream Christian terms, there is a gulf fixed between heaven and hell, so this parable doesn't need to refer to pre-resurrection or not. There's a gulf either way.

What I'm saying is that not all of Jesus's teachings, and all that was written about Him by His apostles and disciples, does not necessarily apply to everyone. In the records are conversations between Jesus and others, such as Mary, that have no importance to any one but the two of them.

Some conversations are unique, I agree, but Jesus' teachings are by and large meant for everyone, the disciples and the disciples they make, and so on. I definitely don't see this particular teaching as merely a personal conversation with no theological bearing on modern followers of Christ.

Spearated as they were, how often do you suppose 2 or 3 of them came together to pray in His name? Even more complicated, having two or more groups, in different locations, meeting at the exact same time doing this.

This would pose a problem for an embodied person who can only be in one place at one time, but a spirit not limited by a corporeal body has no such limitations. In this sense, Jesus could indeed be in the presence of any disciples gathering in his name, regardless of time or place. And I am referring to Jesus post ascension here, just for clarification.

In any case, I posed that earlier thought with the assumption that your interpretation of Jesus' words there was correct. I don't believe that it is. Jesus' promise of his presence with his followers was meant for the entire church the apostles would begin.

Actually I was thinking of His ascension after His resurrection. My point I was trying to make, though deficiently, was that He appeared in a bodily form. He appeared to John, in Revelation, and to Peter as he was escaping Rome(that's more tradition than anything written).

I'll probably have more on this later. I agree that Jesus appeared in physical form to some, but the New Testament also speaks in broader terms regarding Jesus. I'll try to put some words to that later, probably not until next week. Until then, thanks for your thoughts!

Have a great weekend everybody!

[Herb]

Mostly word study and comparison. One of the best ways to understand what a word means is to see it used and defined in other places. Luke 24:39 seems to provide a startling clear definition for the term "spirit". Another aspect is the omnipresent verses, which pose no problem for spirit with no flesh and bones, but a great deal of problem for an enfleshed body. We've already been discussing a big reference in that area, so without further ado...

And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread.

And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.

And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?

Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

And when he had thus spoken, he showed them his hands and his feet. Luke 24:35-40

This is the passage and framed for context. Here were the apostles in a room recounting stories of Jesus and he suddenly appears. They are scared. In order for your analogy to work, "spirit" must refer to God. So why are they frightened that God would appear unto them? Traditional thought says that God has never appeared to any man, so why would they believe that God would appear now? Also there is no mention of prostration or other acts of worship to indicate that they believed it was God.

Jesus explanation doesn't say clarify that He was defining a distinction between Him and that Father. No allusion to the Father is even present in this episode until 24:49, far displaced from the appearance.

I don't see how any verses of omnipresence apply here. This is a particular location, the apostles may, if the episode is stretched, have been ready to perform the sacrament , hence His appearance when 2 or 3 were praying in His name. But to say that this is an account that is supported by omnipresence evidence, you'd first have to show that Christ was, at this time, at two places at once. I don't see support for that.

But the human spirit does not get thirsty, or need water, or get hot. That's part of being flesh and blood. Lazarus did have a finger with water on it, as well. It just seems you are stretching the plain meaning of the text here a little too far. After all, the parable makes no mention of living water.

LDS interpret all (or at least most ) of the passages speaking of body parts with God as literally referring to a physical Why suddenly switch that in this case?

To say that Lazarus, the rich man, or Abraham had a body at this point in time would have been a deception on Jesus's part. There was no general ressurection so no one had a body. Even Sheol is not, as far as I've read, a place for bodies, but a temporary place for spirits.

That a spirit can want water, living water, isn't a stretch when it can be considered that man can have a famine where the word of God is not found.

There isn't a switch in case here. The parable of Lazarus and the Rich man has nothing to do with an anthropomorphic God.

See, in mainstream Christian terms, there is a gulf fixed between heaven and hell, so this parable doesn't need to refer to pre-resurrection or not. There's a gulf either way.

In my brief discussion with mainstream Christians (granted that was 20+ years ago), there is a gulf, Christ, after His resurretion, bridged that gulf.

This would pose a problem for an embodied person who can only be in one place at one time, but a spirit not limited by a corporeal body has no such limitations. In this sense, Jesus could indeed be in the presence of any disciples gathering in his name, regardless of time or place. And I am referring to Jesus post ascension here, just for clarification.

It poses no problem for a embodied Christ. The logistics of where and when the apostles prayed together makes it a very easy.

Have a Great Week End too!

[Gordon]

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

Sorry for late reply.

A statement by a prophet would be considered scripture - when it is prophetic, which this was.

[Gordon]

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.

SteubieU -

I should probably start another thread, since our discussion has gone a tad from the 'different Jesus' debate, but since we've gone this far, might as well finish. Besides, I don't like starting threads. Also sorry for the late reply.

OK, I did what you asked. I tried to forget everything I know, or understand, about G-d, and imagine I was hearing the discription of Him for the first time. Since apparently, I do not understand what you seemingly do, I really want to see it the way you do - right or wrong.

Now, from the explaination you gave, I will give you what I imagined of the discription.

G-d is everything/everywhere. Anything that exists is G-d - the entire universe(s), and all that lies within. He has always existed, not being created, and nothing coming before - He has just always been. So, with this, we, ourselves, are part of G-d himself - since He is everything.

Now, from what you stated, I imagine everything being divided into three parts: the Father, the Son, and the HG. They are all still G-d, because G-d is everything, yet they are three different beings in Him.

The Son became a man on Earth - which is all still G-d. Now I imagine everything else outside of Earth being divided into two - both still spirit, because the third - Jesus - has now taken on a body - which is all still G-d. When he returned to Heaven - which I take as everywhere outside of Earth (or the physical universe that we know), he no longer has a body. Even though he is different from the Father and HG - the other two parts of G-d, they are always together since everything is G-d. When we go to Heaven, basically we all go back to being part of G-d - outside of this physical world we know.

As for Hell, I assume it would be some sort of separate area from the rest of us, but still part of G-d, since He is everything.

Am I even close to what you are trying to get across?

[Gordon]

If he's always been the Savior (biblically speaking), then was he the savior before he was chosen to be the savior, over Satan's similar desire?

No, but he has always been the Savior as far as we are concerned. See, the beginning, is the beginning as far as we know it. We do not remember anything before the beginning of Man, so from the beginning, he has always been the Savior.

Unfortunately, there are no scriptures that refer to people knowing God before they were born. There are only Scriptures referring to God knowing people, which, considering He is omniscient, wouldn't be much of a problem.

Can you cite any scripture - or anything - where one was ordained without them knowing it?

Jesus stated that the Father was greater because, in his present incarnated state, he was a human being, and God was greater than he was.

Yet Jesus thought it not blasphemy to say he was equal with the Father. What I'm trying to point out here, is that Jesus was equal because he had the power of G-d given to him by the Father, and had the authority to act in his name. However, the Father was greater, because he is literally Christ's Father - as he is ours.

Where in Scripture does it state that we will inherit the glory of the Father? Instead, are we not co-heirs of what Christ has? Namely, perfect humanity?

I do believe it specifically states that Christ will inherit all that the Father has - the glory of the Father. So, if we are to be joint-heirs, then we receive what Christ receives.

This refers to the beginning of time as well. The Son has always proceeded from the Father. As time does not apply before Creation, it is quite easy to see how the Son could proceed eternally from the Father.

And this is what I was refering to earlier, that before our creation there wasn't time, or a beginning, so Christ has always been the Savior for us - as we know it. However, there was a period before our creation and our time that did exist, and during it Christ, and ourselves, where born, created, organized, etc. of our Father.

[rhinomelon]

Good thoughts, Gordon and Herb. Sorry I've been absent. I will probably post more on this later. Just wanted to address this quickly:

G-d is everything/everywhere. Anything that exists is G-d - the entire universe(s), and all that lies within. He has always existed, not being created, and nothing coming before - He has just always been. So, with this, we, ourselves, are part of G-d himself - since He is everything.

Okay, you have a lot of stuff right, but a big part of your summary that will lead you away from what we're talking about is the pantheistic part of it, i.e. that everything is God. That is not part of traditional Christian belief; rather, that is more of an Eastern philosophical viewpoint. God is separate from His creation, although He is present throughout it.

Likewise, we are not part of God, in that sense. We will not return to being part of God after death. That is also a common Eastern view. We were never a part of God to begin with; rather, we are created by God.

And Christ still has a body, don't forget. It just doesn't limit Christ in his divine attributes like omnipresence, omniscience, etc.

More later. And I haven't forgotten you, Herb Take care, everyone

[Gordon]

Okay, you have a lot of stuff right, but a big part of your summary that will lead you away from what we're talking about is the pantheistic part of it, i.e. that everything is God. That is not part of traditional Christian belief; rather, that is more of an Eastern philosophical viewpoint. God is separate from His creation, although He is present throughout it.

So basically anything of a physical nature - that G-d created - would be considered separate from him, yes?

So Heaven and Hell are separate creations as well, correct?

Likewise, we are not part of God, in that sense. We will not return to being part of God after death. That is also a common Eastern view. We were never a part of God to begin with; rather, we are created by God.

So when/if we go to Heaven, we worship G-d, but do we ever get to see him or be with him?

And Christ still has a body, don't forget. It just doesn't limit Christ in his divine attributes like omnipresence, omniscience, etc.

So now I picture Christ with his body in Heaven, and the Father and the HG are the remaining to parts of G-d (spirit) that are everywhere else, yes?

[rhinomelon]

So basically anything of a physical nature - that G-d created - would be considered separate from him, yes?

So Heaven and Hell are separate creations as well, correct?

Yes, correct.

So when/if we go to Heaven, we worship G-d, but do we ever get to see him or be with him?

That's what makes heaven heaven! We will see and be with God for eternity.

So now I picture Christ with his body in Heaven, and the Father and the HG are the remaining to parts of G-d (spirit) that are everywhere else, yes?

In a way, yes. Technically speaking, the Trinity is not made up of parts; it is a whole. Perhaps it would be more correct to say that the Father and the Holy Spirit are the remaining persons in the Trinity. And all three persons are omnipresent and omniscient, etc. The Son as well as the Father and the Spirit.

I really appreciate your thinking in this way. It is rare to find LDS who want to truly understand the Trinity, before they reject it.

Take care, everyone

[rhinomelon]

Okay Herb, now I have some lunch time to eat and provide some food for thought.

Actually I was thinking of His ascension after His resurrection. My point I was trying to make, though deficiently, was that He appeared in a bodily form. He appeared to John, in Revelation, and to Peter as he was escaping Rome(that's more tradition than anything written).

I agree that Christ appeared in bodily form. But there are references to Christ doing things that an embodied person would be unable to do. The verse we've been discussing (Matthew 18:20) regarding Jesus' presence with any group gathering in his name is a big one. I still do not see that this is simply referring to the disciples alone. Jesus didn't address this statement to "you", meaning the disciples, but to "them", meaning others who gather in his name.

While Christ does appear in bodily form, that does not mean that he is limited by that body, or that God the Father also must have a body.

This is the passage and framed for context. Here were the apostles in a room recounting stories of Jesus and he suddenly appears. They are scared. In order for your analogy to work, "spirit" must refer to God. So why are they frightened that God would appear unto them? Traditional thought says that God has never appeared to any man, so why would they believe that God would appear now? Also there is no mention of prostration or other acts of worship to indicate that they believed it was God.

It is not necessary to my analogy to equate "God" with "spirit" in every case. God is spirit, however not all spirits are "God". Jesus suddenly appeared, so they were frightened, perhaps thinking he was a ghost. It is similar to their reaction when they saw Christ walking across the stormy water. Anyway, they think they're seeing a spirit/ghost (not God per se), so Jesus denies that by saying that spirit does not have flesh and bones, as he does.

I don't see how any verses of omnipresence apply here. This is a particular location, the apostles may, if the episode is stretched, have been ready to perform the sacrament , hence His appearance when 2 or 3 were praying in His name. But to say that this is an account that is supported by omnipresence evidence, you'd first have to show that Christ was, at this time, at two places at once. I don't see support for that.

Sorry if I was confusing. I would not use this verse to make a case for omnipresence at all. But Luke 24 does speak a great deal about what a spirit it, and most importantly for the discussion here, what it is not. Matthew 18, on the other hand, speaks to omnipresence, as Jesus promises that he will be present with those who call on his name, disciples or those that come after them.

To say this teaching only applies to the disciples would run into problems when looking at Acts, in which Jesus appears to unbelievers and solitary figures, who are not apostles. Also, it would mean that Jesus is not in the midst of anyone who prays in his name today, which would conflict with some LDS teachings and beliefs as well as mainstream Christian ones.

Anyway, to sum up. There are good and bad spirits. This much is also clear from the Bible. All spirits, whether good or bad, by Jesus' definition, are unembodied.

More later. Take care, everyone

[Herb]

I agree that Christ appeared in bodily form. But there are references to Christ doing things that an embodied person would be unable to do. The verse we've been discussing (Matthew 18:20) regarding Jesus' presence with any group gathering in his name is a big one. I still do not see that this is simply referring to the disciples alone. Jesus didn't address this statement to "you", meaning the disciples, but to "them", meaning others who gather in his name

Matthew 18: 18-19 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

You see in the preceeding passages to Matt: 18:20 there are listed invests authority to those who He is addressing. The power to bind, to marry, was not, as far as I'm aware, given to the ordinary parishioner, nor was the other investment of blessing objects or people. Imagine how difficult it would be to maintain order. These would fall into the same catagory as giving of the Holy Ghost after baptism. They are powers that can't be bought. To say that 18:20 is for the masses and 18:19-19 aren't, is illogical IMO. How do you relate Matt 18:18-19 to the general populace?

But Luke 24 does speak a great deal about what a spirit it(s)

I'm still at a lost of how you see that. Yous wrote ,"It is not necessary to my analogy to equate "God" with "spirit" in every case. God is spirit, however not all spirits are "God". Jesus suddenly appeared, so they were frightened, perhaps thinking he was a ghost. It is similar to their reaction when they saw Christ walking across the stormy water. Anyway, they think they're seeing a spirit/ghost (not God per se), so Jesus denies that by saying that spirit does not have flesh and bones, as he does. " If you cannot be sure what spirit is being discussed in the passage, then you cannot say that the passage explains a lot about spirits. To say it does would be to lump all spirits in the same catagory.

Anyway, to sum up. There are good and bad spirits. This much is also clear from the Bible. All spirits, whether good or bad, by Jesus' definition, are unembodied.

What was the equation? Again too blanket of a statement. E.G. God=spirit, Jesus=God, Spirit=no body, Jesus=no body. Without discarding His body, Jesus doesn't fit.

Take Care

Herb