The Nicene Creed

[johnny]

Antley,

The wording in the Bible indicates they are "one Being" ...

- it says God created, it does not say Gods created

- it says God was alone and by himself, it does not say God created with other Gods

[Joseph Antley]

Antley,

The wording in the Bible indicates they are "one Being" ...

- it says God created, it does not say Gods created

Yes yes, I understand that you interpret the Bible to mean they are one But what exactly does that mean?? What does it mean to be "one Being"? In what way are they one?

- it says God was alone and by himself, it does not say God created with other Gods

It doesn't quite say that. In fact, to me, it implies quite the opposite.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness - Genesis 1:26

And there's always the unexplainable irregularity of how "Elohim" is grammatically plural and can just as easily be translated "Gods" as it can "God" (except when the verb conjunction prevents it).

[Joseph Antley]

Hey ya'll I saw this website and it was rather faith promoting.....check it out... click here

It didn't promote my faith any. Stop spamming. If you want to talk about a website, start a thread about it.

[johnny]

Antley,

It means their are not multiple Gods.

Could you explain how alone and by himself implies the opposite ... if you are alone then their are no other Gods with you?

Gen 1:26 reveals multiple persons but does not reveal multiple Gods, verse 1 says God created, it does not say Gods created. This is confirmed with Isa 45. God is one but not solitary.

Gen 1

[1] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

[26] And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Isa 45

[3] And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the LORD, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel.

[5] I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

[6] That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.

[7] I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

[11] Thus saith the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me.

[12] I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

[14] Thus saith the LORD, The labour of Egypt, and merchandise of Ethiopia and of the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto thee, and they shall be thine: they shall come after thee; in chains they shall come over, and they shall fall down unto thee, they shall make supplication unto thee, saying, Surely God is in thee; and there is none else, there is no God.

[15] Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour.

[18] For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

[21] Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.

[22] Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.

[23] I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.

[1dc]

How man Gods did Joseph Smith when he two pesonnages if the Father is a God and the Son is a God?

The Father is not fully God? The Son is not fully God? Father + Son . . Hmmm How many did he see who were fully God? Hmmmm. Two divine personages of the One God(head).

Could you explain how John 14:10 says "all of the glory goes to the Father for whom His messengers serve".  . . .

Sure. You don't think Christ's body was dwelling in the Father's body and neither do I. Therefore, by that standard we can agree He was saying something else about indwelling. All works which are from God relate to His chosen purpose: "For behold, this is my work and my glory

[cdowis]

<Gods created. Gods took counsel among themselves (Abr 4)

Gods formed man (Abr5) >

Gen 1 [26] And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

Gen 3 [22] And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil

You might want to look carefully into the name "Eloheim".

"A plural noun governing a singular verb may be according to oldest usage. The gods form a heavenly assembly where they act as one. In this context, the Elohim may be a collective plural when the gods act in concert. Compare this to English headquarters, which is plural but governs a singular verb: there are many rooms or quarters, but they all serve one purpose. Thus, it is argued, the meaning of Elohim therefore can mean one god, with many attributes."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eloheim

Precise as JS tells us -- the council of the Gods.

[johnny]

1dc,

When you say "Two divine personages of the One God(head)" is this same as saying two Gods?

In John 14:10 I don't think Christ's physical body was dwelling in the Father. I do believe they are coherent like Tertullian (see below)

Tertullian (Against Praxeas 2 [A.D. 216]

"We do indeed believe that there is only one God, but we believe that under this dispensation, or, as we say, oikonomia, there is also a Son of this one only God, his Word, who proceeded from him and through whom all things were made and without whom nothing was made. . . . We believe he was sent down by the Father, in accord with his own promise, the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father and the Son, and in the Holy Spirit. . . . This rule of faith has been present since the beginning of the gospel, before even the earlier heretics"

"And at the same time the mystery of the oikonomia is safeguarded, for the unity is distributed in a Trinity. Placed in order, the three are the Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in being, but in form; not in power, but in kind; of one being, however, and one condition and one power, because he is one God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (ibid.).

"Keep always in mind the rule of faith which I profess and by which I bear witness that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and then you will understand what is meant by it. Observe now that I say the Father is other [distinct], the Son is other, and the Spirit is other. This statement is wrongly understood by every uneducated or perversely disposed individual, as if it meant diversity and implied by that diversity a separation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" (ibid., 9).

"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent persons, who are yet distinct one from another. These three are, one essence, not one person, as it is said,

[johnny]

cdowis,

The word Elohim denotes either the true God or false gods, and metaphorically it is applied to judges, angels, and kings.

Gen 1:26-27 is not revealing a council of Gods. Isaiah 44 and Isaiah 45 are clear that God was alone and by himself during creation. Irenaeus wrote the following on Gen 1:26:

Irenaeus: Against Heresies 4:20:1 [A.D. 189]

"It was not angels, therefore, who made us nor who formed us, neither had angels power to make an image of God, nor anyone else. . . . For God did not stand in need of these in order to accomplish what he had himself determined with himself beforehand should be done, as if he did not possess his own hands. For with him [the Father] were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, he made all things, to whom also he speaks, saying,

[cdowis]

Johnny,

It is clear that you have the answers, and I am an stupid fool for even attempting to respond to your posts.

I will be foolish no longer.

[Joseph Antley]

It means their are not multiple Gods.

Could you explain how alone and by himself implies the opposite ... if you are alone then their are no other Gods with you?

I wasn't referring to what you said. I was referring to Genesis. To me, it implies that that God was not alone. What is your scripture reference that says God was alone? To me, a verse that says there is only one God doesn't mean He was alone.

Gen 1:26 reveals multiple persons but does not reveal multiple Gods, verse 1 says God created, it does not say Gods created.  This is confirmed with Isa 45.  God is one but not solitary.

Okay okay. So these multiple persons can correspond with each other, appear separately, etc, yet they are still all the same being? Are you saying together collectively they make up a single God? Could the Father exist without the Son or Holy Spirit, and if so, would He still be God?

Could you explain how you believe the Trinity/Godhead works, in Lamen's terms? The scripture's you quote don't help me understand your position.

[livy111us]

Johnny, You say Isaiah 44 and Isaiah 45 are clear that God was alone and by himself during creation.

Have you read those chapters in context, or just regurgitating anti-Mormon rhetoric?

Those arguments are commonly used to attempt to refute 3 Gods. But I ask you to read these chapters in context. They are not speaking about true Gods, but false ones, gods made out of wood and stone. It is being proved that those gods weren't around for any major events. Isaiah 41:29, 42:8, 43:10, 12, 24 , 44:8, 9, 10, 17, 19, 45:9, 12, 16, 20, 22 are all scriptures that give the correct context.

Here are a few quotes from past threads:

Similarly, the presbyter Novatian maintained that Christ was both angel and God.

Novatian, On the Trinity 19, in ANF 5:630, cf. On the Trinity in ANF 5:628

And he equated this God/angel with the Lord (Yahweh) of Hosts.

Novatian, On the Trinity 12 , in ANF 5:621

He also made clear that the Spirit is subject to the Son.

Novatian, On the Trinity 16, in ANF 5:625

He also said that the unity of the Godhead is NOT some metaphysical "oneness", but unity of will. (LDS again)

Novatian, On the Trinity 27, in ANF 5:637-638

Novatian also did not hesitate to name other angels "gods" as well: "If even the angels themselves...as many as are subjected to Christ, are called gods, rightly also Christ is God."

Novatian, On the Trinity 20, in ANF 5:631

Lactantius approvingly quoted a Hermetic text which spoke of a "second God"

Lactantius, Divine Institutes 4:6, in ANF 7:105

Eusebius of Caesarea likewise called Jesus a "secondary being" who is both angel and God.

Eusebius, The Proof of the Gospel 1:5, 2 vols. translated by W. J. Ferrar

Not only did many Christian writers identify Jesus with Yahweh, until the 5th century it was quite common to call Jesus either a "second God", the chief angel, or both. Similarly, it was made clear that the Holy Spirit occupies the third place.)

Danielou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity, 146

For example, during the second century Justin Martyr wrote that the "first-begotten", the Logos, "is the first force after the Father": he is "a second God, second numerically"Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church, 268

Then I replied, "I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, [of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel..."

Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 56, in ANF 1:223

Clement of Alexandria referred to Jesus as the "Second Cause".

Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 7:3

and Peter not only called Jesus both God and angel but also identified him with Yahweh, the prince of the Sons of God mentioned in Deut. 32:7-8

Peter, in Clementine Recognitions 2:42, in ANF 8:109

And of course Origin, whom I have already quoted.

I would like your view on John 1:1 though. Forgive the re-post.

The King James Version translates this as

[1dc]

When you say "Two divine personages of the One God(head)" is this same as saying two Gods?

The short and complete answer is: No.

If you would have asked why not, I suppose I my easy answer to that question is that scripture instructs us that 2 divine personages (gods) do not equal our One God(head).

Though the three letter word god is a simple working term (note parallel to your comment on consubstantial below) for a divine personage, the word also has the important alternate meaning assigned so clearly by scripture. So when one uses the term, a careful and honest listener will look for which specific intended meaning was meant rather than condemning the author or speaker for one's own presumed meaning.

One worships God as being supremely omnipotent and complete. Christ said His God was the Father suggesting that Christ does not consider Himself supreme relative to the Father. God the Father gave and accepts His Only Begotten as our Savior by His sacrifice and the principle of mercy. With the principle of justice, we need a Savior to return to the Father. We see two gods who are distinct, each fully God, but also each not individually or separately God in the Father's plan of salvation. This is articulated in LDS basic teachings so clearly that I have no doubt anyone who truly wants to understand and not play word games to bash another's beliefs cannot miss it.

So for me, "Yes" would also have been an acceptable answer if I had intended to convey that I was seeing two fully divine personages even as I know they are two of the three persons in the One God(head). I wouldn't have been at all confused or concerned, since I presume I'll have more time to explain myself more fully.

In John 14:10 I don't think Christ's physical body was dwelling in the Father. 

As presumed. Hence, the that verse helps us to understand that indwelling is presumably not a wholly physical manifestation. That is may be partially physical becomes speculation which can allow for different interpretations.

I do believe they are coherent like Tertullian (see below)

Interestingly, he limits his comments and understanding on the mystery to his time or dispensation. I don't think it contradicts the LDS position. More so when we consider a new dispensation was opened with the restoration.

John 5:19 does not reveal that the Son became God.

Christ calling Himself the Alpha isn't found there, either. Glad you believe Him when He tells John He is the Beginning.

I believe Jesus was God, God was manifest in the flesh.  I don't believe that Jesus became God. Do you believe 1Tim 3:16 which says "God was manifest in the flesh"?

Sure. He was already God before this earth was.

Can you find "I and my Father are one" in your King James Bible?

Sure. It doesn't say it means essence or consubstantial or one in being. It does say united (which is not coincidently exactly how it is footnoted in my King James Bible).

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/john/10/30a

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/tg/u/30

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/tg/g/85

Note that unity is a completely consistent theme in the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine & Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price.

"consubstantial" is simply a term ... "one in being" is simply a phrase in the Nicene creed ... "consubstantial" and "one in being" are simply another way of saying ""I and my Father are one" which means that, in the Father and with the Father the Son is one and the same God.

You lost me at one and the same God. They have different roles (what with the Father being Christ's God) and saying they are the same seems to diminish that concept a bit.

What is a "modal God"? When Stephen called to God ... was Jesus a "modal God" or God?

Modal: A morphological category loosely correlating with modality. Jesus was not a modal form of the Father, in other words Jesus and the Father are distinct personages which Stephen saw together at the same time.

Jesus is G/god (divine personage) but not separately the One God(head).

Stephen had a vision.  Ezekiel had a vision, he saw "the appearance of a man" ... "the apperance of the brightness roung about".

Begging the question of whether the brightness was round about God the Father . .

Your profession is different than the creed.  The LDS church reveals that the Son "is a God".

Yes, He is a divine personage of the One God(head).

The creed reveals, like the Bible, that the Son "is God".

And yet, Christ alone is not the One God(head).

  1Tim 3:16 says  "God was manifest in the flesh" ... who was manifest in the flesh, was it the Father or the Son or the Godhead or ...

You don't know?

Thanks for explaining "sentient" ... I would agree that they are "distinct sentient beings" but I would not say they are "separate sentient beings" because they are inseparable.  The early christians wrote:

- The Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other (Tertullian 213AD)

- The Father and the Son being one. And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son (Athenagoras 177 AD)

- For both are one--that is, God (Clement of Alexandria 202AD)

No disagreement there.

Now, some others who profess a belief in the Trinity do seem to suggest that one in being means they are the same sentient being. Or that God is an singular and non-distinct essence rather than distinct personages with 2 (LDS perspective) having bodies. That IMO is more of what JS was trying to correct, because he always taught their unity (albeit in a different conceptual framework than held at that time in his part of the world).

You say that if the Godhead appeared to you  ... you would see "Three distinct personages" ... does this mean they are separate like the illustration at the following link ... does this mean you would see three seperate Gods?

Still 3 divine personages, distinct and united. Still One God(head).

Or you can simply dismiss my meaning and insert your own meaning for us so as to continue bashing us. Please, show us whether catholic means "free from provincial prejudices or attachments", as in "catholic tastes".

[Smith]

Smith, it's nice that you are trying to answer a certain board member's questions. However, a quick search of said member's posts will probably enlighten you as to the fact that he is not interested in your answer, only repeating his singular mantra, and you might have better uses for your time.

I see this, I think I will take up your suggestion, thanks.

[johnny]

Antley,

Isa 44:24 speaks of God being alone and by himself during creation:

Isa 44

[24] Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

It is not "all the same being", it is one eternal being. God is one in substance, nor three divine substance. The Father and the Son and the Spirit are inseparable.

Trinity is the term used to signify that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another.

[johnny]

livy111us,

Have you read Isa 44 is says "alone" and "by myself", could you explain how "alone" and "by myself" relate to "false ones, gods made out of wood and stone".

Here are a few quotes from past threads:

- For both are one--that is, God (Clement of Alexandria 202AD)

- The Father and the Son being one. And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son (Athenagoras 177 AD)

- No division of substance, but merely an extension. Christ is Spirit of Spirit ... the two are one (Tertullian 197AD)

- The Logos is God, being the substance of God (Hippolytus 220AD)

- The Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other (Tertullian 213AD)

- I do not mean that there are two Gods (Hippolytus 210AD)

- A Triad is preached by Scripture, neither Old Testament nor New preaches three Gods (Dionysius 262 AD)

- there is one God, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son, who is His eternal Word (Ignatius, Magnesians 8 (105-115AD))

- He was God, Son of the only, unbegotten, unutterable God (Justin Martyr 155AD)

Why is your view of John 1 different than view presented in the Joseph Smith Translation? My view is similiar to what is found in the footnotes of the Catholic Bible (see link below).

http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/john/john1.htm#foot2

[johnny]

1dc,

While on earth Christ does not consider Himself supreme relative to the Father because he is in the form of a servant. After his resurrection the Son's glory is equal to the Father.

You say you "see two gods who are distinct". I say two distinct persons who are not seperate because the Son is "one in being with the Father. The Father and the Son are inseparable.

I see three divine persons in the One God(head) but I do not see three divine substances making up the one God(head).

I believe Tertullian contracicts the LDS position in his statements below.

Tertullian: Against Praxeas  [A.D. 216]

"While keeping to this demurrer always, there must, nevertheless, be place for reviewing for the sake of the instruction and protection of various persons. Otherwise it might seem that each perverse opinion is not examined but simply prejudged and condemned. This is especially so in the case of the present heresy [sabellianism], which considers itself to have the pure truth when it supposes that one cannot believe in the one only God in any way other than by saying that Father, Son, and Spirit are the selfsame person. As if one were not all . . . through the unity of substance" ... "Keep always in mind the rule of faith which I profess and by which I bear witness that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and then you will understand what is meant by it. Observe, now, that I say the Father is other [distinct], and the Son is other, and the Spirit is other. . . . I say this, however, out of necessity, since they contend that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are the selfsame person" 

Tertullian

"We do indeed believe that there is only one God, but we believe that under this dispensation, or, as we say, oikonomia, there is also a Son of this one only God, his Word, who proceeded from him and through whom all things were made and without whom nothing was made. . . . We believe he was sent down by the Father, in accord with his own promise, the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father and the Son, and in the Holy Spirit. . . . This rule of faith has been present since the beginning of the gospel, before even the earlier heretics" (Against Praxeas 2 [A.D. 216]).

"And at the same time the mystery of the oikonomia is safeguarded, for the unity is distributed in a Trinity. Placed in order, the three are the Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in being, but in form; not in power, but in kind; of one being, however, and one condition and one power, because he is one God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (ibid.).

"Keep always in mind the rule of faith which I profess and by which I bear witness that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and then you will understand what is meant by it. Observe now that I say the Father is other [distinct], the Son is other, and the Spirit is other. This statement is wrongly understood by every uneducated or perversely disposed individual, as if it meant diversity and implied by that diversity a separation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" (ibid., 9).

"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent persons, who are yet distinct one from another. These three are, one essence, not one person, as it is said,

[livy111us]

Johnny,

You reference Isaiah 44. There are many scriptures in that chapter. Please be so kind as to give a verse.

I enjoy your referencing to other early Church Fathers contradicting the quotes I posted. Do you believe that the early Church was unified in it's teachings? Paul said that God gave prophets, apostles for the "perfecting of saints" until "we all come in the unity of faith". I don't see a unity of faith in these contradicting teachings. Nothing a leader who speaks with the Lord couldn't fix though! But, alas, there were none at that time, and people were tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine (Ephesians 4:11-14).

As for you view of John 1:1, just for future reference, you do not answer a question with another question. To actually answer something, you must respond. I was referring to the translation I provided. Thanks

[johnny]

livy111us,

Isa 44:24 speaks of God being alone and by himself during creation.

Isa 44

[24] Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

I believe some truths were unfamiliar to the early church writers, later revelation clarified these early writers.

I answered you by giving you a link to a translation by the Catholic church. IMO your translation is incorrect.

[docrick]

livy111us,

Isa 44:24 speaks of God being alone and by himself during creation.

Isa 44

[24] Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

I believe some truths were unfamiliar to the early church writers, later revelation clarified these early writers.

I answered you by giving you a link to a translation by the Catholic church. IMO your translation is incorrect.

For all my LDS brethren and sisters it is impossible to engage in a meaningful scriptural discussion Old or New Testament with Johnny.

I mean all due respect to Johnny, but the translation of the scriptures he uses are different from the scriptures we LDS use, and as Johnny just stated he believes our scriptural translation to be in error.

Therefore there is absolutely no use to "debate" any issue with Johnny if scripture references are to be used.

Just my opinion

[johnny]

docrick,

My opinion is that you go back an look at my old post ... the translation I use is the King James. The scripture references are the same as the LDS use. I believe the translation is correct.

[livy111us]

Thank you for the reference.

2 questions, why is my translation wrong? Do not the Greek words translate the way that I impose? Or is it something else? You know as well as I do that this translation is true to the Greek. There is no reason to say it is wrong, other than your opinion.

Second, what is IMO? I have seen this quite often as well as IMHO. Please inform me.

[johnny]

livy111us,

It is my opinion that your interpretation of JOhn 1 is incorrect. I base that opinion by comparing your interpretation to other interpretations like the link I provided.

Is your interpretation supported by the LDS church, if so could you please provide the link or is it simply your interptation.

IMO ... means "in my opion".

[livy111us]

Johnny,

I can accept that. Everyone has a right to their own opinion. But doctrinally, I see no objections to it.

I never claimed it to be an official position of the Church. I only claimed it to be a translation.

So my guess is IMHO is in my HUMBLE opinion?

Also, your quotation of Isaiah aligns perfectly with the context of which it is in. That is Jehovah speaking about the many false gods made of stone. Were they around for the creation? Nope. They were just another rock. Any other interpretation would be taking it out of context.

[johnny]

livy111us,

Why do you limit it to "false gods" ... alone is alone?

The context of Isa 44:24 is saying that God was alone and by himself during creation. LDS scriptures reveal just the opposite, LDS scriptures reveal he was not alone and not by himself.

[livy111us]

Again, you can make anything mean want you want it to mean out of context. In context means reading more than just one scripture. You must read what the entire subject being discussed is about. And that is exactly what I have posted. False gods. You cannnot read this scripture in context and come to your conclusion.