ERayR Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 SargonI would not characterize it that way â?¦You canâ??t find the concept of â??three Godsâ? in the Bible but yet Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church teaches "three Gods".Nice try johnny but it is you who are bound to the Bible alone. If you are going to bind yourself to the Bible please refrain quoting extra biblical interpretations.As for the LDS we are not bound to the Bible alone and are at least able to quote mine enough scriptures to lend credence to what we teach. You prove your point, unequivocally, from the Bible only as that is your choice and I will respect that. However, I require that you respect my decision to accept other sources that I trust.
Notquitewetyet Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 Repost.Tanyan-- the problem is, the Catholic Church does teach that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father. "God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God." If they'd been critiquing Calvin's view of the Trinity, with Christ having an "autothetes" nature, they would have had a point.
ERayR Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 SargonIs Satan a god like God the Father?What do you mean "like"?
Tanyan Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 From my LDS JEDI KNIGHT Archive : http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5257/twogods.htm In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan LDS JEDI KNIGHT.
Sargon Posted January 14, 2009 Author Posted January 14, 2009 I'm still wondering why Jesus taught something so foreign to monotheism when he had a perfect opportunity to teach monotheism in John 10.
johnny Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 SargonHow can you reconcile this with the Trinity?It is reconciled in that Jesus is the Son of God and the Son of man just like scripture reveals.Nonetheless, he is called "god" in other places.In other places the Son of God is the Word was made flesh, the Word was God.We have three gods, and we simultaneously have "one God." We reconcile this by appealing to other scriptures which explain this mystery in terms of their love, power, and purpose.We do not have â??three Godsâ? because the bible reveal there is â??but oneâ?. You explain it by making up unbiblical concepts like "homoousia".How is the concept "homoousia" unbiblical?He is the same fundamental species, yes. However, as you know, that is about where the comparison ends.What do you mean by â??the same fundamental speciesâ??
Tanyan Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 Tanyan-- the problem is, the Catholic Church does teach that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father. "God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God." If they'd been critiquing Calvin's view of the Trinity, with Christ having an "autothetes" nature, they would have had a point. Perhaps we can let them know that and see what they say ?.
Sargon Posted January 14, 2009 Author Posted January 14, 2009 Time to take my wife on a date. See you fellas tomorrow.
johnny Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 SargonI'm still wondering why Jesus taught something so foreign to monotheism when he had a perfect opportunity to teach monotheism in John 10.Iâ??m still wondering why Jesus teach did not teach â??three Godsâ? in John 10?
Tanyan Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 What is the Greek word for "One" in the N.T and does it support Catholic or LDS Model/Form ?. Tanyan LDS JEDI KNIGHT.
Tanyan Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 SargonI'm still wondering why Jesus teach did not teach "three Gods" in John 10? Anchient Monarch/Eastern/Economic/Social/Godhead/Trinity. Anchient Celestrial/Heavenly Law Of Divine Agency. In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan LDS JEDI KNIGHT.
Tanyan Posted January 14, 2009 Posted January 14, 2009 Tanyan-- the problem is, the Catholic Church does teach that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father. "God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God." If they'd been critiquing Calvin's view of the Trinity, with Christ having an "autothetes" nature, they would have had a point. Submission between members of The Biblical Trinity is needed. http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-subordination.htm In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan LDS JEDI KNIGHT.
Sargon Posted January 15, 2009 Author Posted January 15, 2009 SargonIt is reconciled in that Jesus is the Son of God and the Son of man just like scripture reveals.You are going to have to be more specific. As I pointed out, the verse in question clearly indicates that Jesus is a 3rd party, a mediator. He is the middle man between the "one God" and "men". Therefore, we have a situation in which Paul does not include Jesus as part of the "one God". This situation can be demonstrated from many other verses besides this one.In other places the Son of God is the Word was made flesh, the Word was God.Precisely. In some places Christ is excluded from the "one God", and in other places he is referred to as God. This is an apparent contradiction.We do not have â??three Godsâ? because the bible reveal there is â??but oneâ?.But you are completely ignoring the facts that I laid out above. Christ is definitely identified many times in the NT as not being part of "God", and yet at other times he is identified as "god". Instead of seeing the obvious fact that the Father and Son are two different "gods" (the H.S. being the third), you go on and invent things like the hypostatic union in order to protect the Greek, and unbiblical, notion of metaphysical monotheism.How is the concept "homoousia" unbiblical?If you are aware of anything in the bible that teaches it, please let us know.What do you mean by â??the same fundamental speciesâ??As Notquitewetyet has pointed out, there are different ways to use the word "god". Yes, it is appropriate to refer to Satan as a god, for the exact same reason it is appropriate to refer to you, or I, or to Peter, or to the Pope, or to any literal spirit offspring of God as a "god". Perhaps a better word would be "godling". Due to our fundamental species (the species "homo sapien", the same species as God the Father) we are "gods". Satan is one of us. But, "god" can also refer to an elevated status, a position of greater power, glory, and righteousness. That is the kind of "gods" we are striving to be. There is a third kind of "god". This one is appropriately written in all caps, "GOD". This one is the one supreme GOD, the source of all power, wisdom, and righteousness. This is our Father in Heaven. This is one that we will never catch up to.
soren Posted January 15, 2009 Posted January 15, 2009 John 10:31-3631 Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him,32 but Jesus said to them, â??I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?â?33 â??We are not stoning you for any of these,â? replied the Jews, â??but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.â?34 Jesus answered them, â??Is it not written in your Law, â??I have said you are godsâ???35 If he called them â??gods,â?? to whom the word of God cameâ??and the Scripture cannot be brokenâ??36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, â??I am Godâ??s Sonâ???One would think that this would have been a great opportunity for Jesus to teach the doctrine of the Trinity. The disbelieving Jews accused him of claiming to be God, and Jesus could have responded by saying something like: â??But I am God! You see, the Father, Myself, and the Holy Spirit are one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one, the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal. As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords, but one Lord.â?1But, strangely enough, Jesus did not take that prime opportunity to elucidate the mystery of his metaphysical oneness with the Father. Instead, when accused of claiming to be God, Jesus essentially said: â??Ya? So what? Your own scriptures teach that there are gods other than the Father. Whatâ??s the big deal if I claim to be the Son of God?â?Given a prime opportunity to affirm metaphysical monotheism, Jesus instead offends the Jews even more by claiming that not only is he God (the son of God), but that there are other gods beside him, and that their own scriptures teach it. Why would Jesus do that?Notes[1] The Athanasius Creed. http://www.holybible.com/resources/athanasius_creed.htm (accessed 1-12-08 )Jesus does teach monotheism in John's Gospel, everytime that he identifies himself as "I am, "Ego eimi. It is important, I think essential, to realize that that this Greek phrase is not the usual trnaslation of "Yahweh" used inthe LXX. Almost all ofthe places in which "Yahweh" is translated render it as [i[Ego eimi ho on, "I am who am." By using ego eimi simply, John alludes sepcifically to the transaltion of Yahweh that occurs in just a couple of verses in the LXX version of Isaiah, which include the classic Is. 43:10-11:Ye 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 [ego eimi]: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.In these verses we see a number of important Johanine themes in play. First is theme of testimony, since witness and testify are the same word in Greek. Next is faith, since they are called to know and "believe," and John is especially emphatic about stressing beleif as the proper response to Jesus' teaching. Next is the uniqueness of Christ as savior. These themes from Isaiah converge when Jesus says, "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, [ego eimi] ye shall die in your sins." (John 8:24)If one realized that Jesus is alluding to Isaiah 43:10-11, and interpreting Iasaiah's wrods as being about himself, it makes a problem for Mormon subordinationism, which says the Father is formed before the Son. Further, one cannot escape the problem by limited the application of the verse just to this world, since both the Father and the Son are gods within the same world.So yes, Jesus teaches monotheism. The reason he offends the Pharisees in the first place is that he claims to be the one God of monotheism, and that the only saving testmony is one that affirms him as such.
johnny Posted January 15, 2009 Posted January 15, 2009 SargonYou are going to have to be more specific. As I pointed out, the verse in question clearly indicates that Jesus is a 3rd party, a mediator. He is the middle man between the "one God" and "men". Therefore, we have a situation in which Paul does not include Jesus as part of the "one God". This situation can be demonstrated from many other verses besides this one.The man Jesus is a mediator in the sense that â??God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himselfâ?. Jesus is not God the Father, he is the Son of God.Precisely. In some places Christ is excluded from the "one God", and in other places he is referred to as God. This is an apparent contradiction.The contradiction that you are perceiving is that the word â??Godâ? has different usages. In the above verse God is referring to nature, it is not referring to the person God the Father.But you are completely ignoring the facts that I laid out above. Christ is definitely identified many times in the NT as not being part of "God", and yet at other times he is identified as "god".To help me better understand your point could you please provide the verses that make your point that â??Christ is definitely identified many times in the NT as not being part of "God", and yet at other times he is identified as "god".â?Instead of seeing the obvious fact that the Father and Son are two different "gods" (the H.S. being the third), you go on and invent things like the hypostatic union in order to protect the Greek, and unbiblical, notion of metaphysical monotheism.The obvious fact is that scripture does not reveal â??two different "gods"â? but reveals â??but oneâ? . If you are aware of anything in the bible that teaches it, please let us know.The following verses support the concept of "homoousia",John.10 ([30] I and my Father are one. [36] Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? [38] But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.)-2Cor.5 ([19] To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself , not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.)As Notquitewetyet has pointed out, there are different ways to use the word "god". Yes, it is appropriate to refer to Satan as a god, for the exact same reason it is appropriate to refer to you, or I, or to Peter, or to the Pope, or to any literal spirit offspring of God as a "god". Perhaps a better word would be "godling". Due to our fundamental species (the species "homo sapien", the same species as God the Father) we are "gods". Satan is one of us. But, "god" can also refer to an elevated status, a position of greater power, glory, and righteousness. That is the kind of "gods" we are striving to be. There is a third kind of "god". This one is appropriately written in all caps, "GOD". This one is the one supreme GOD, the source of all power, wisdom, and righteousness. This is our Father in Heaven. This is one that we will never catch up toIn Jesus dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. Men can only partake of the divine nature according to Godâ??s divine power.
Sargon Posted January 15, 2009 Author Posted January 15, 2009 Jesus does teach monotheism in John's Gospel, everytime that he identifies himself as "I am, "Ego eimi. It is important, I think essential, to realize that that this Greek phrase is not the usual trnaslation of "Yahweh" used inthe LXX. Almost all ofthe places in which "Yahweh" is translated render it as [i[Ego eimi ho on, "I am who am." By using ego eimi simply, John alludes sepcifically to the transaltion of Yahweh that occurs in just a couple of verses in the LXX version of Isaiah, which include the classic Is. 43:10-11:Ye 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 [ego eimi]: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.In these verses we see a number of important Johanine themes in play. First is theme of testimony, since witness and testify are the same word in Greek. Next is faith, since they are called to know and "believe," and John is especially emphatic about stressing beleif as the proper response to Jesus' teaching. Next is the uniqueness of Christ as savior. These themes from Isaiah converge when Jesus says, "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, [ego eimi] ye shall die in your sins." (John 8:24)If one realized that Jesus is alluding to Isaiah 43:10-11, and interpreting Iasaiah's wrods as being about himself, it makes a problem for Mormon subordinationism, which says the Father is formed before the Son. Further, one cannot escape the problem by limited the application of the verse just to this world, since both the Father and the Son are gods within the same world.So yes, Jesus teaches monotheism. The reason he offends the Pharisees in the first place is that he claims to be the one God of monotheism, and that the only saving testmony is one that affirms him as such.Thank you soren, but I don't view Isa 43:10-11 as a statement of metaphysical monotheism. Besides, the particular question I have is in regard John 10, where Jesus teaches something very opposite of metaphysical monotheism.
Sargon Posted January 16, 2009 Author Posted January 16, 2009 SargonThe man Jesus is a mediator in the sense that â??God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himselfâ?. Jesus is not God the Father, he is the Son of God.To my ears this just doesn't sound like the Trinity. The Trinity says that Christ IS God, he is one of the persons of the Trinity. The wording "God was in Christ" is not the wording of the Trinity. I see two possible interpretations of the word "God" in this passage (2nd Cor. 5:19) neither of which seem to correlate to Trinitarian terminology:1. If "God" here signifies "god-stuff" or the unique ousia of God, then this might be a statement of Christ's divinity, his role as a person in the Trinity. But, is it appropriate to say that "God" is in Christ? Rather, it seems more Trinitarian to say "Christ possesses God", or "Christ's ousia is God."2. If "God" in this statement signifies the Father person of the Trinity, then the meaning of the Father being "in" Christ is much better explained by John 17 then by abstract formulations drummed up in later centuries:John 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.The nature of being "in" Christ is no more mysterious then our being "in" Christ, or more precisely the way in which the then present apostles were "in" Christ. It isn't in a metaphysical way.More The contradiction that you are perceiving is that the word â??Godâ? has different usages. In the above verse God is referring to nature, it is not referring to the person God the Father.Then you choose my option #1 above. However, I think you are misled in your choosing of number one. The context of the passage, and corroborating passages, almost demands that we choose option #2 above.2 Cor 518And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; 19To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 20Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. This set of passages teaches the standard idea that Christ came to reconcile man to God the Father. I argue that the red portions above all refer to God the Father, and no other person. It seems fairly clear that "God" in verse 18 refers to the Father, because "God" is distinguished from Jesus Christ in that verse. It would be nonsensical to say that God (Jesus Christ) reconciles us to himself (Jesus Christ) by Jesus Christ. Instead, God (the Father) reconciles us to himself (God the Father) by Jesus Christ.Furthermore, other passages speak clearly of God the Father sending his son as a mediator to save man:John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life1 Tim 2: 5 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;Heb 8: 6 he is the mediatorHeb 9: 15 he is the mediatorHeb 12: 24 Jesus the mediatorWe could find many many other passages where Jesus speaks of himself as being sent by the Father. Why was he sent by the Father if not to reconcile man to God the Father? Therefore, we conclude that 2 Cor 5:19 uses the word "God" in the sense of option #2 above. This means that the Trinity is not supported by 2 Cor 5:19, because it clearly identifies Jesus Christ as a third party acting as a mediator. That third party could not be the same "being" as God.To help me better understand your point could you please provide the verses that make your point that â??Christ is definitely identified many times in the NT as not being part of "God", and yet at other times he is identified as "god".â? The following passages clearly distinguish Jesus Christ from his God. 1Cr 8:6 But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who [is] above all, and through all, and in you all.Jhn 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.John 20: 17 to my God, and your God.Matt 27: 46 , My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?Heb 1: 8 -9 therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee2 Cor 11: 31 The God and Father of our Lord Jesus ChristEph 1: 3 The God and Father of our Lord Jesus ChristEph 1: 17 The God and Father of our Lord Jesus ChristI interpret these passages in a straightforward way, without any twisting or turning. The plain meaning is that Jesus Christ has a god. I'm sure I don't need to cite passages to you that describe Jesus Christ as divine, or as god. Therefore, the bible teaches that Jesus Christ, as a god, has a god of his own.The following verses support the concept of "homoousia",John.10 ([30] I and my Father are one. [36] Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? [38] But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.)-2Cor.5 ([19] To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself , not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.)Well, I quoted John 17:21 above which puts your first passage into context, a context which severely damages your doctrine of "homoousia". And, I also deconstruced 2 Cor 5:19 above and have shown that "homoousia" is not what is being taught.The End.
johnny Posted January 16, 2009 Posted January 16, 2009 SargonTo my ears this just doesn't sound like the Trinity. The Trinity says that Christ IS God, he is one of the persons of the Trinity.Christ IS God, Christ is the divine nature. Jesus is one of the persons of the Trinity.The wording "God was in Christ" is not the wording of the Trinity.This wording is found the Catholic Church teachings, see link and text below:http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm#III253 - The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons"1. If "God" here signifies "god-stuff" or the unique ousia of God, then this might be a statement of Christ's divinity, his role as a person in the Trinity. But, is it appropriate to say that "God" is in Christ? Rather, it seems more Trinitarian to say "Christ possesses God", or "Christ's ousia is God."John 14 tells us the Father dwelt in Christ and the the Father did the works.John.14 ([10] Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. [11] Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake..)2. If "God" in this statement signifies the Father person of the Trinity, then the meaning of the Father being "in" Christ is much better explained by John 17 then by abstract formulations drummed up in later centuries:John 17:21 also makes my point that the Father was "in me".John.17 ( [21] That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.)The nature of being "in" Christ is no more mysterious then our being "in" Christ, or more precisely the way in which the then present apostles were "in" Christ. It isn't in a metaphysical way.Those who are "in" Christ, the Father and the Son come unto them and make their abode with them, see below. The difference between the Son and us is that "in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily".John.14 ([23] Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.)Then you choose my option #1 above. However, I think you are misled in your choosing of number one. The context of the passage, and corroborating passages, almost demands that we choose option #2 above.In the context of John 1:1 ... John 1:1 is referring to nature.I argue that the red portions above all refer to God the Father, and no other person. It seems fairly clear that "God" in verse 18 refers to the Father, because "God" is distinguished from Jesus Christ in that verseThe Father and the Son are distinct persons. The "himself" in 2Cor 5:19 is referring to the Father.We could find many many other passages where Jesus speaks of himself as being sent by the Father. Why was he sent by the Father if not to reconcile man to God the Father? Therefore, we conclude that 2 Cor 5:19 uses the word "God" in the sense of option #2 above.We can find other passages that reveal "God was manifest in the flesh". 1Tim.3 ( [16] And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.)This means that the Trinity is not supported by 2 Cor 5:19, because it clearly identifies Jesus Christ as a third party acting as a mediator. That third party could not be the same "being" as God.This means that the Trinity is supported by 2Cor 5:19 ... this means that you have ignored the word "himself" in 2Cor 5:19. The man Jesus is the mediator between God and man. The doctrine of the Trinity DOES NOT teach "same being" as you have indicated. You have a distorted view of the concept of "homoousio", the doctrine of the Trinity reveals "one in Being", see below:The Nicene Creed â??We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being (consubstantial/homoousion) with the Father. Through him all things were made.â?The following passages clearly distinguish Jesus Christ from his God.The doctrine of the Trinity distinguishes the Son of God from God the Father.I interpret these passages in a straightforward way, without any twisting or turning. The plain meaning is that Jesus Christ has a god. I'm sure I don't need to cite passages to you that describe Jesus Christ as divine, or as god. Therefore, the bible teaches that Jesus Christ, as a god, has a god of his own.You have twisted the doctrine of the Trinity and the concept of homoousio. I also interpret these passages in a straightforward way. When these passages are read with other scriptures it reveals that the Son of God, is God and Man. God, of the substance of the Father and Man, of the substance of His mother. The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is the mediator between God and man.Well, I quoted John 17:21 above which puts your first passage into context, a context which severely damages your doctrine of "homoousia".John 17:21 fits nicely with the doctrine of "homoousia", John 17:21 reveals "Father, art in me, and I in thee". The doctrine of "homoousia" is "one in Being". John.17 ([21] That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me , and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.)And, I also deconstruced 2 Cor 5:19 above and have shown that "homoousia" is not what is being taught.The doctrine of "homoousia" IS NOT "same being" as you have indicated, it is "one in being", see below:The Nicene Creed â??We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being (consubstantial/homoousion) with the Father. Through him all things were made.â?
Sargon Posted January 16, 2009 Author Posted January 16, 2009 If restating Catholic dogma is your reply, then I guess I'm done here.
johnny Posted January 16, 2009 Posted January 16, 2009 SargonIf restating Catholic dogma is your reply, then I guess I'm done here.Have a nice day then ...
Mudcat Posted January 16, 2009 Posted January 16, 2009 The bible teaches a paradox. It teaches that:A) There is only one GodB ) There is more than one GodYou have your respective way of dealing with this, through Greek philosophy. We have our respective way of dealing with it, through common sense and through other biblical passages.Hi Sargon,This is Great! A Trinity vs. LDS Godhead debate!!! Yay!I put one of these on my Christmas list and thought Santa had forgot me.Im jumping in here, but....My only input at present, bold mine, would be that I don't see the 'respective way' LDS deal with the situation as having more common sense, IMO its a similar method. The LDS Godhead is defined by LDS Doctrine given through leaders of the LDS Church. The doctrine of the Trinity is accepted for similar reasons by the majority of Christians.My question would be on what basis do you determine the LDS version is a more 'common sense' approach?Respects,MudcatPS - I used to read Marvel when I was a kid. They had lots of "What if" comics.... Like "What if the Avengers fought the X-Men", "What if Captain America was a Nazi" etc... They were always kinda neat to read, because the never happened but could have. I have wondered....."What if Arius had swayed the council?"
David Bokovoy Posted March 2, 2009 Posted March 2, 2009 Sargonâ??there is none other God but oneâ?, see below1Cor.8 ([4] As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. [6] But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.)There is that â??called godsâ?, for example Satan is called god1Cor.8 ([5] For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)Hello Johnny,I'm not interested in online debating. But I am curious to know what you mean by the fact that 1 Cor. 8:5 states that there exist those that are "called" gods. Are you suggesting that since they are only "called" gods, that these beings are not really gods? If so, from your perspective, was Jesus not really the Christ since he was only "called" such? "Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ" (Matt. 1:16) Thanks.
Tanyan Posted March 2, 2009 Posted March 2, 2009 johnny got banned. . In His Debt/Grace Tanyan - LDS JEDI KNIGHT.
David Bokovoy Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 johnny got banned.I see. I had no intention of trying to change his mind, but was only mildly curious if I had interpreted his logic correctly and if so, how he would account for the use of the word legomenos or "called" in other New Testament passages. Perhaps I'm wrong, but in my mind, the fact that Jesus was "called" Christ (Matt 1:16) and "called" a Nazarene (Matt 2:23) does not imply that he wasn't really the Christ and/or really a Nazarene, anymore than a statement that there exist those "called" gods would imply that those beings were not really gods.Just my thoughts.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.