urroner Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 >>If so, does the Son have the ability to go against the will of the Father?>>Me: No, for the wills of the 3 members of the Godhead are perfectly united.Grace and peace,DavidThanks for the answers David. I really appreciate them, but I still need some more clarification.You said that th3e wills of the Godhead are perfectly united, has there ever been a time during their infinite existence when their wills were not united? I realized that in the Garden, when Christ was praying, he said "not my will, but thy will," but I am asking for a different time.I guess the reason why I'm asking this is because of they have perfectly united wills, and I believe they do, and each of them is omniscient, then why are there three and not just one? Why three and not four? Why not 100? I realize this might be one of those angels and pinhead questions.
David Waltz Posted January 4, 2009 Author Posted January 4, 2009 Hello Billy,You posted the following:>>God the Father is a GodGod the Son is a GodGod the Holy Spirit is a GodThese three Gods are 3 separate and distinct Gods (but one in purpose)Which of the Gods above don't you "believe in"?Do you only believe in one of the three Gods?>>And earlier:>>This is what I believe1. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons (most evident at Christ's baptism)2. Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God3. There is only one God>>Me: You are posing questions, and defining doctrine without clear, unequivocal definitions of the terms used.Letâ??s start with, â??There is only one Godâ?. As you know, phrase â??one Godâ? in the Bible is used of the Father alone, and is never applied to Jesus/the Son (or HG). The same follows in ALL the pre-Nicene Church Fathers, and in the Nicene Creed itself (â??We believe in one God, the Fatherâ?¦â?). [bTW, these facts, and the threat of modalism, led many early Church Fathers to speak of Jesus/the Son as â??another Godâ? or as a â??second Godâ?.]Now, as Christian apologists began to confront the charges of polytheism leveled against them, they began to articulate much more clearly their doctrine of the Godhead.This same development/progression in theological reflection has been taking place within the CoJCoLDS.The BoM clearly states that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are/is â??one Godâ?:And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen. (2 Nephi 31:21)â?¦but everything shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil. (Alma 11:44)And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one. (3 Nephi 11:36)And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end. (Mormon 7:7)Yet in early LDS theologically reflections, an emphasis was placed on God the Father as the â??one Godâ?, without denying that the Father, Son and HG are/is â??one Godâ?. There was also an emphasis on the plurality of the persons within the Godhead, due, I am quite sure, to nascent modalism among the masses.But, now, with the charges of polytheism being leveled by many anti-Mormon polemicists, one sees a much more articulated theology from some LDS scholars.Once again, Dr. Paulsen:http://www.modernreformation.org/default.p...ead&var5=24And Blake Oslter:http://66.102.1.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&...ept+of+Deity%22So, it seems to me that you are attempting to simplify LDS theology for polemical purposes, ignoring the complexity that exists not only within LDS theology, but historical Christianity as well.Grace and peace,David
Cold Steel Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 If you said one God, which one do you worship, God the Father, God the Son, OR God the Holy Spirit?I asked YOU the same question, and you have yet to answer, Billy. You've also not yet addressed why the New Testament distinguishes God from Christ. If the early Christians believed that the Father was not God, that Jesus wasn't God, and that the Holy Spirit wasn't God, but that all three, together, comprised God, then why don't we see any reflection of that? Why does Christ speak of His Father as "God"? Why did Stephen say he saw Jesus on the right hand of God? You haven't yet addressed these questions. Jesus prayed that the Twelve might be ONE, "even as" the Father and the Son are ONE. Acts 2:22-24Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. Here, there is a distinction made between Jesus and God. Were the Christians polytheists?Acts 2:36Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus...both Lord and Christ.God made Jesus both Lord and Christ. So tell me, who is God?Acts 3:13...the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go.Revelation 1:1-2The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John, who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. I publicly challenge you to address this, Billy. The ancient Christians regarded God in the same manner the Latter-day Saints do. We acknowledge the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit each to be individual Gods and ONE in purpose ("For this is my work and my glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man."). So far you're just making empty dogmatic pronouncements.
David Waltz Posted January 4, 2009 Author Posted January 4, 2009 Hi CK,Longtime no chat; so good to see you show up in this thread. You posted:>>Hi David--The underlined portion above strikes me as either quite wrong or quite unfortunately worded. Would you hold that, for example, affirming the Symbolum Quicunque entails a radical redefinition of "belief in one God," in "orthodox" Christian terms?Perhaps you're merely positing that NT Christian trinitarianism is very different than OT Jewish monotheism. But that's hardly a controversial point, so I suspect you might mean something more.Curious.>>Me: First, I think 3DOPâ??s comments are worth repeating â??>> As a Trinitarian Catholic, accepting the Nicene Creed I claim to be monotheistic. But I cannot contend that my monotheism is as perfect as that of a Jew or Moslem. There is a reason why Catholics and other Christians are accused of polytheism. I can not care what label is attached to my faith except with regard to whether another might be scandalized. But that is mostly beyond my control. The only thing of importance as a Trinitarian, is whether my "polytheism lite" is compatible with the monotheism as revealed by God before and after Christ. In my opinion, the revelations given through Christ and the apostles make it necessary for the post-apostolic believer to re-interpret the strict monotheistic Jewish understanding of the Old Testament, in favor of a creed/interpretation that open us up to the charge of being polytheistic. I care much for maintaining the Tradition of Christ and His Apostles. It bothers me none if Jews and Muslims can claim to be more strictly monotheistic than us. Would a Jew or Moslem be able to write, as John Henry Newman in one of his hymns: "I firmly believe that God is Three and God is One"? Certainly not. I think it is fair for the non-Christian to point out that our monotheism is not the same as theirs. But if Christ revealed a watered-down monotheism, then I believe in a watered-down monotheism. I do not have a relationship with monotheism. Monotheism is not my Creator, Saviour, or Lord. I do not worship monotheism. I do not even capitalize monotheism. If I must become an infidel, denying the substantial divinity of the Son of God, as well as the Holy Ghost who proceeds from the Father and the Son in order to be monotheistic, then I am a polytheist by such a definition.>>Me: Second, for the record, I am not a fan of the Athanasian Creed, and much prefer the language of the Nicene Creed (btw, while the NC has been officially endorsed by the RCC, the AC has not). Next, Christians must never forget that we use the phrase â??one Godâ? in two distinct senses: in the first sense, God the Father is the â??one Godâ?, He alone is the â??one Godâ? (as attested in the NT, the early CFs, and Nicene Creed); in the second sense, â??one Godâ? refers to the one divine nature shared by the Father, Son and HG. By adopting/creating this second sense of the phrase, Christians have, in a real sense, radically redefined what the phrase â??one Godâ? originally meant.Hope this helps clarify my reflections; if not, please feel free to ask more questions.Grace and peace,David
urroner Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 Billy, if Jesus is God and he has a God, then does God have a God?
Billy Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 Letâ??s start with, â??There is only one Godâ?. As you know, phrase â??one Godâ? in the Bible is used of the Father alone, and is never applied to Jesus/the Son (or HG). The same follows in ALL the pre-Nicene Church Fathers, and in the Nicene Creed itself (â??We believe in one God, the Fatherâ?¦â?). DavidAccording to LDS theology, who is the "one God" spoken about in these passages? Is it the Father or the Son? Who is the God of the Old Testament? Jehovah? Isa 4310Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.11I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviourIsa 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and beside me [there is] no GodUsing the framework of the LDS Bible DictionaryLORD=Jesushttp://scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/j/25"BIBLE DICTIONARY JEHOVAHThe covenant or proper name of the God of Israel. It denotes the â??Unchangeable One,â? â??the eternal I AMâ? (Ex. 6: 3; Ps. 83: 18; Isa. 12: 2; Isa. 26: 4). The original pronunciation of this name has possibly been lost, as the Jews, in reading, never mentioned it, but substituted one of the other names of God, usually Adonai. Probably it was pronounced Jahveh, or Yahveh. In the KJV, the Jewish custom has been followed, and the name is generally denoted by LORD or GOD, printed in small capitals.Jehovah is the premortal Jesus Christ and came to earth being born of Mary http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/g/43BIBLE DICTIONARY GOD"When one speaks of God, it is generally the Father who is referred to; that is, Elohim. All mankind are his children. The personage known as Jehovah in Old Testament times, and who is usually identified in the Old Testament as LORD (in capital letters), is the Son, known as Jesus Christ, and who is also a God."
3DOP Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 On the Trinity:Is the Trinity composed of three separate beings?If so, are they able to act independently of each other?Is Christ subordinate to the Father and if he is, if God is fully God, how can Christ be fully God and still subject to someone who is fully God?Are all the members of the Trinity omnipotent? If so, does the Son have the ability to go against the will of the Father?Hi Lynn,I have to concur with Dave's answers, but would place some emphasis on his answer to this question: "Is Christ subordinate to the Father and if he is, if God is fully God, how can Christ be fully God and still subject to someone who is fully God?"There is sometimes a presumption that subordination implies inferiority of substance/essence/being. But how could this be, that Christ is essentially inferior to the Father if He is truly the Son? Where in creation can you point to offspring that is essentially inferior to its parents? Nowhere. Birds make birds. Weeds make weeds. Why would we think that God the Father's offspring is inferior? If weeds can reproduce true weeds, what cause do we have for thinking that there is an exception when God reproduces? Whatever qualities make God God, have been transmitted to the Son. This is just as we see it in creation. Subordination implies inferiority, yes. But why do so many seem to assume that subordination implies substantial or essential inferiority? There are other reasons for subordination that do not imply substantial inferiority. For instance, Am I less human than my supervisor at work from whom I get permission to do what I want or orders to do what I don't want? Of course not. I am his inferior according to my relationship with him. Are your children less human than you are if they happen to obey you (I realize they probably don't...perhaps you obey them! Kidding, heh.)? Of course not, inferiority of relationship does not imply essential or substantial inferiority. Whatever it means to be human, both Urroner and his children have 100% of it, regardless of who is placed in positions of authority. Christ reveals Himself to be the Son of the Father. Sonship is an inferior position and it is proper for sons to honor and obey their fathers, and mothers, for no other reason than an inferiority of relationship.PS: I know there is sometimes angst over the words, essence, substance, and being.For purpose of this post, and whenever I use them, they are synonyms which mean this: All and only those qualities which must be present to define what a thing is. (Others of a more philosophical bent can probably give a clearer definition, but I am trying to show that there is nothing deep or dark about the meanings and they apply the same way to a pebble, as they do to tree, as they do to a shark, as they do to a man, as they to an angel, as they do to God.)
jwhitlock Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 Let me ask you a couple of questions. Because you keep bringing up the fact that it takes more than "belief in" more than one God to make you a polytheist, rather you say you have to worship more than God (or god as you prefer).Do you worship one God or more than one God?If you said one God, which one do you worship, God the Father, God the Son, OR God the Holy Spirit?I am in general agreement with David in his post #152 on this subject, so re-read that for a good answer to your post.The point of all this is that the label "polytheist" is simply a polemic device used by anti-Mormons to dilute LDS theology concerning the worship of God, in order to give the impression of pagan worship of many gods outside of the Godhead. The label is inaccurate, as there are better terms for describing LDS theology concerning the worship of God.Your continued attempts to over-simplify the discussion by continually asking if we worship God the Father and Jesus Christ, separate individuals, miss the point. The label of polytheism cannot be accurately applied using such simplistic criteria, since the polytheism carries additional connotations that you are unwilling - before you get the label to stick - to consider in the discussion.
Billy Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 This same development/progression in theological reflection has been taking place within the CoJCoLDS.The BoM clearly states that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are/is â??one Godâ?:DavidSo do you believe that there is ONE God?Or do you believe that the Godhead consists of THREE separate God's, but one in purpose?
urroner Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 David and Rory, sometimes you seem to be using the word "God" like it was a title or station, or a type of beings. I realize that in giving examples, if carried out further than what the example was supposed to be, it contorts everything. Am I doing this? Thanks for your answers. They have been very helpful.
David Waltz Posted January 4, 2009 Author Posted January 4, 2009 Hi Billy, It sure seems to me that you are still avoiding many of the important issues I have been raisingâ?¦With that said, I will attempt to address the new â??trailâ?? you have presented; you posted:>> According to LDS theology, who is the "one God" spoken about in these passages? Is it the Father or the Son? Who is the God of the Old Testament? Jehovah? Isa 4310Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.11I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviourIsa 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and beside me [there is] no GodUsing the framework of the LDS Bible DictionaryLORD=Jesus>>Me: Within the narrow â??framework of the LDS Bible Dictionaryâ? (and not the broader framework of the entire LDS Quad) the person that is speaking is the Son, but as the Fatherâ??s spokesman/representative (LDS writers prefer to the phrase â??divine investitureâ?. BTW, the phrase â??one Godâ? is not in either passage).Now, a question for you: who does Peter say â??The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathersâ? is? (See Acts 3:13.)As for the use of Jehovah within the LDS paradigm see Kirklandâ??s:â??Elohim and Jehovah in Mormonism and the Bibleâ?http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/document....p;CISOPTR=16763And:â??Jehovah As Fatherâ?http://web.archive.org/web/20060323034519/...ble/Issue44.aspGrace and peace,David
Billy Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 The point of all this is that the label "polytheist" is simply a polemic device used by anti-Mormons to dilute LDS theology concerning the worship of God, in order to give the impression of pagan worship of many gods outside of the Godhead.I am not trying to use any "device" as you put it, I am simply stating fact, that you are a polytheist according to several dictionary definitions. Polytheism is the belief in OR worship of multiple deities, such as gods and goddesses.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytheismpol
jwhitlock Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 I am not trying to use any "device" as you put it, I am simply stating fact, that you are a polytheist according to several dictionary definitions.Polytheism is the belief in OR worship of multiple deities, such as gods and goddesses.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytheismpol
urroner Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 I am not trying to use any "device" as you put it, I am simply stating fact, that you are a polytheist according to several dictionary definitions. Polytheism is the belief in OR worship of multiple deities, such as gods and goddesses.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytheismpol
David Waltz Posted January 4, 2009 Author Posted January 4, 2009 Hi Billy,Wow, this thread is moving so quicklyâ?¦difficult for this beachbum to keep up with everythingâ?¦You posted:>>So do you believe that there is ONE God?>>Me: I believe that there is â??ONE Godâ? in the two senses that I delineated earlier.>>Or do you believe that the Godhead consists of THREE separate God's, but one in purpose?>>Me: I believe that three, distinct personsâ??each of which share in the ONE DIVINE NATUREâ??comprise the Godhead.Grace and peace,David
David Waltz Posted January 4, 2009 Author Posted January 4, 2009 Hello again Lynn,You posted:>>Thanks for the answers David. I really appreciate them, but I still need some more clarification.>>Me: Probably due to my poor writing skillsâ?¦>>You said that th3e wills of the Godhead are perfectly united, has there ever been a time during their infinite existence when their wills were not united? I realized that in the Garden, when Christ was praying, he said "not my will, but thy will," but I am asking for a different time.>>Me: I need to mull this over, for I have never really thought it through. >>I guess the reason why I'm asking this is because of they have perfectly united wills, and I believe they do, and each of them is omniscient, then why are there three and not just one? Why three and not four? Why not 100? I realize this might be one of those angels and pinhead questions.>>Me: B.H. Roberts talks about this at length in his discourse â??Godâ? (one of his last talks, the only place I have been able to find it is in the book, Last Seven Discourses of B.H. Roberts). I am going to try and type up the salient portions, and start a new thread. >>David and Rory, sometimes you seem to be using the word "God" like it was a title or station, or a type of beings. I realize that in giving examples, if carried out further than what the example was supposed to be, it contorts everything. Am I doing this?>>Me: Going back to the two senses of the phrase â??one Godâ?, the first is a title, and position for it is the Father that is the source of the divinity of the Son and HG; He is in some real sense â??beforeâ? the Son and HG. The second sense, the ONE DIVINE NATURE sense, speaks to the â??type of beingsâ?.Hope I have helped; but I fear that I can be confusing at timesâ?¦Grace and peace,David
coolrok7 Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 Hi Billy,Wow, this thread is moving so quicklyâ?¦difficult for this beachbum to keep up with everythingâ?¦You posted:>>So do you believe that there is ONE God?>>Me: I believe that there is â??ONE Godâ? in the two senses that I delineated earlier.>>Or do you believe that the Godhead consists of THREE separate God's, but one in purpose?>>Me: I believe that three, distinct personsâ??each of which share in the ONE DIVINE NATUREâ??comprise the Godhead.Grace and peace,DavidJesus said (are you saying Judaism is polytheistic?):Jesus answered him, â??The first of all the commandments is: â??Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one. And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.â?? This is the first commandment. (Mark 12:29-30)So David, is the view you just stated, the equivalent of Joseph Smith's "plurality of gods" statement (which is polytheistic in the sense of other gods actually existing not necessarily that they are worshipped, unless they are being worshipped by the people who they are supposedly "gods" of like "Heavenly Father is to Mormons) statement in the King Follet discourse (Teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith) during Church conference in 1844?
David Waltz Posted January 4, 2009 Author Posted January 4, 2009 Hey coolrok,Good to see you back:>>Jesus answered him, â??The first of all the commandments is: â??Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one. And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.â?? This is the first commandment. (Mark 12:29-30)>>Me: Before I can answer your question, I need you to clarify something: was Jesus referring to the Father in the above verse or some other person?Grace and peace,David
urroner Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 Hope I have helped; but I fear that I can be confusing at timesâ?¦Grace and peace,DavidI guess you have never heard me try to explain things. I would love to see you, Rory, some of the FARMS boys, Shirts, Paul Had****, Rhinomelon, and a couple of others in a good discussion about anything.BTW, have you heard anything from Paul lately and his life in paradise in the South Pacific?
urroner Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 I find it interesting that a righteous ancient Israel worshiped not only God, but also a mere mortal.
urroner Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 To those who insist that the Shema is insurmountable evidence that there is only one God, I have evidence that it isn't what you think it is. I wandered over to Michael Heiser's site and found the following article Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism? Toward an Assessment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible Note: there are some Hebrew lettering in article and it wasn't showing up very well in my browser, so I just inserted "(Hebrew words)" in place of them. I have also bolded some parts I think are very important to the discussion of the Shema.INTRODUCTIONMost scholars whose work focuses on Israelite religion recognize that the Hebrew Bible contains a number of references assuming and even affirming the existence of other gods. As a corollary to this observation, scholars also frequently assert that no explicit denial of the existence of other gods occurs until the time of Deutero-Isaiah and thereafter (6th century B.C.E.) in a presumed campaign by zealous scribes to expunge such references from the sacred text. Even the Shema and the first commandment do not consign the other gods to fantasy, since the demand is made that no other gods should be worshipped. The data apparently informs us that Israelite religion evolved from polytheism to henotheistic monolatry to monotheismWhile this viewpoint dominates scholarly discussion of Israelite religion, the question ought to be asked whether it is lucid. Does the viewpoint derive from the known data from earliest times into the Common Era, or is the reasoning offered in its support circular? Are terms like â??polytheismâ? and â??henotheismâ? truly adequate to describe what the writers of the biblical canon believed?Treatments of the issue and the relevant passages by other Jewish and Christian scholars often assume the biblical writers spoke only of idols when discussing other gods, or that references to plural (Hebrew words) in certain passages are best understood as referring to human beings. These options are also flawed in that they bring theology to the text. These alternatives assume that a 17th century word (â??monotheismâ?) has or can rightly be imposed on the theology of Israel, and that without this term, it must be acknowledged that Israelite religion was indeed henotheistic or polytheistic.<snip>But what about the second half of the statements of Deut 4:35, 39 (Hebrew words)? Must the phrasing be construed as a denial of the existence of all other gods except Yahweh? There are several difficulties with this understanding.First, similar constructions are used in reference to Babylon and Moab in Isa 47:8, 10 and Nineveh in Zeph 2:15. In Isa 47:8, 10 Babylon says to herself, (Hebrew words)(â??I am, and there is none else beside meâ?). The claim is not that she is the only city in the world but that she has no rival. Nineveh makes the identical claim in Zeph 2:15 (Hebrew words). In these instances, these constructions cannot constitute the denial of the existence of other cities and nations. The point being made is very obviously incomparability.Second, (Hebrew words) and other related forms (Hebrew words) need not mean â??aloneâ? in some exclusive sense. That is, a single person in a group could be highlighted or focused upon. 1 Kgs 18:1-6 is an example. The passage deals with the end of the three-year drought and famine during the career of Elijah. After meeting with Elijah, Ahab calls Obadiah, the steward of his house, and together they set upon a course of action to find grass to save their remaining horses and mules. Verse 6a) then reads: (Hebrew words) (â??Ahab went one way by himself (Hebrew words), and Obadiah went another way by himself (Hebrew words)While it may be possible to suggest that Obadiah literally went through the land completely unaccompanied in his search, it is preposterous to say that the king of Israel went completely alone to look for grassâ??without bodyguards or servants. The point is that (Hebrew words) (and by extension (Hebrew words) ) need not refer to complete isolation or solitary presence. Another example is Psalm 51:4 [Hebrew, v. 6], which reads in part: (Hebrew words) (â??against you, you alone, I have sinnedâ?). God was not the only person against whom David had sinned. He had sinned against his wife and certainly Uriah. This is obviously heightened rhetoric designed to highlight the One who had been primarily offended. It was God against whom Davidâ??s offense was incomparable.By no means is Michael Heiser a Mormon mole or even in disguise. He is very much an Evangelical from what I understand and he has even written several papers, published by FARMS, contesting some of the conclusions made by Mormon scholars.The point he was making is that the Shema wasn't talking about a lone solitary God, rather it was that God had no rival/comparable god.
David Waltz Posted January 4, 2009 Author Posted January 4, 2009 Hi Lynn,Thanks for providing the link to Dr. Heiserâ??s paper. I keep forgetting about him, and the excellent work he has been doing. All of his essays at http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/ are worth reading (even though I do not agree with everything he writes).Grace and peace,David
coolrok7 Posted January 4, 2009 Posted January 4, 2009 Hey coolrok,Good to see you back:>>Jesus answered him, â??The first of all the commandments is: â??Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one. And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.â?? This is the first commandment. (Mark 12:29-30)>>Me: Before I can answer your question, I need you to clarify something: was Jesus referring to the Father in the above verse or some other person?Grace and peace,DavidAfter you answer mine first, I asked first, Jesus was quoting the Schema from the Old testament (the verse in the mazuzahs on the doorposts of Jewish peoples homes as I understand). So who was Jesus referring to?So David, is the view you just stated, the equivalent of Joseph Smith's "plurality of gods" statement (which is polytheistic in the sense of other gods actually existing not necessarily that they are worshipped, unless they are being worshipped by the people who they are supposedly "gods" of like "Heavenly Father is to Mormons) statement in the King Follet discourse (Teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith) during Church conference in 1844? â??Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one! You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength. â??And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. 9You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.( Deuteronomy 6:4-
David Waltz Posted January 5, 2009 Author Posted January 5, 2009 >> After you answer mine first, I asked first, Jesus was quoting the Schema from the Old testament (the verse in the mazuzahs on the doorposts of Jewish peoples homes as I understand). So who was Jesus referring to?>The Father; I do not think he was referring to either multiple persons, or the non-personal DIVINE NATURE.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.