Jump to content

Does the Nicene Creed, homousious, ontologically the same


Hannah Rebekah

Recommended Posts

Recently in another LDS forum an Anti-Mormon said:

According to Doctrine and Covenants 130:3, "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's." A common proof text used by Mormons to support Smith's claim is Genesis 1:26, 27.

We have all heard this argument before but this is how I answered...

Amazing how the Nicene Creed testifies to the Father having a body of 'flesh and bone'....oooooohh....I'm sure they didn't realize they were doing just that when they used the non-Biblical word homousious. But you claim they are ontologically the same...that means of the same substance. And the resurrected Christ...resurrected means that his body was united with his spirit never to be separated again and he became a glorified being. So let me get this straight....Christ testified to his apostles that he was not a spirit because his resurrected soul, his 'being' was a body of 'flesh and bone' which are his words....and I take the Savior at his word. And if he and the Father are one and are of the same substance, then there you have it....the Father has a resurrected body of 'flesh and bone.' Not 'flesh and blood' as that is indicative of mortality. But 'flesh and bone' which is indicative of immortality. If you don't agree then I want to know what Christ did with his body that he said he would take up again in three days?

Luke 24: 36-43

36

Link to comment

Recently in another LDS forum an Anti-Mormon said:

According to Doctrine and Covenants 130:3, "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's." A common proof text used by Mormons to support Smith's claim is Genesis 1:26, 27.

We have all heard this argument before but this is how I answered...

Amazing how the Nicene Creed testifies to the Father having a body of 'flesh and bone'....oooooohh....I'm sure they didn't realize they were doing just that when they used the non-Biblical word homousious. But you claim they are ontologically the same...that means of the same substance. And the resurrected Christ...resurrected means that his body was united with his spirit never to be separated again and he became a glorified being. So let me get this straight....Christ testified to his apostles that he was not a spirit because his resurrected soul, his 'being' was a body of 'flesh and bone' which are his words....and I take the Savior at his word. And if he and the Father are one and are of the same substance, then there you have it....the Father has a resurrected body of 'flesh and bone.' Not 'flesh and blood' as that is indicative of mortality. But 'flesh and bone' which is indicative of immortality. If you don't agree then I want to know what Christ did with his body that he said he would take up again in three days?

Luke 24: 36-43

36

Link to comment
Hummmmm.....if Christ was resurrected then it must be true that his Father was resurrected and heaven forbid....a 'body of flesh and bone' the same as the Sons since they are ontologically the same.

Nok, that doesn't follow at all.

~~~~~~~~~~

Link to comment
Hummmmm.....if Christ was resurrected then it must be true that his Father was resurrected and heaven forbid....a 'body of flesh and bone' the same as the Sons since they are ontologically the same.

It is easy to show that Jesus has a body even now and by John 5:19 thart the Father does too.

I know that as Mormons we don't believe that God the Father and Christ are the same being but separate beings but are the same in harmony and unity...and in all ways the Savior is the same as the Father. So would anyone like to add to this argument or even refute it.

Ontologically, it works because of the scriptures. But it is impossible to go farther and harmonize the trinity heresy with LDS doctrine. God is an abstraction in the trinity. For example...

The Father is God.

Jesus is God.

The Holy Ghost is God.

The Father Son and Holy Ghost are not each other.

But.....

God is not the Father

God is not Jesus

God is not the Holy Ghost.

God consists of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and a certain "essence".

Put another way...

The man is married because of the marriage.

The woman is married because of the marriage.

The man and the woman are not each other.

But....

The marriage is not the man or the woman.

The marriage is both the man and woman.

The marriage consists of the man and the woman, and certain laws and traditions.

Marriage is an abstract concept just as God is an abstract concept in the trinity.

Link to comment

BC Space

It is easy to show that Jesus has a body even now and by John 5:19 thart the Father does too.

Ontologically, it works because of the scriptures. But it is impossible to go farther and harmonize the trinity heresy with LDS doctrine.

3DOP

Hi BC Space. That is what I would believe if I were LDS. I could never be persuaded that the Ancient Creeds or the Fathers who authored them, taught by implication that the Father has a body. They certainly seem to have maintained that Christ was eternally consubstantial with the Father, just as He was eternally begotten of the Father prior to the Incarnation. Corporeality of the Father cannot be found in the Nicene Creed.

Link to comment

What is really interesting is that a Gnostic Christian teacher of the Second Century taught the following doctrine as to the nature and character of God:

Valentinus and his followers believed that God, the supreme Father is "uncontained, incomprehensible and cannot be seen or heard" (Against Heresies 1:2:5). Therefore he defies accurate description. He is infinite, without beginning or end and is the ultimate origin of all things. He encompasses all things without being encompassed (Ep5:3, Gospel of Truth 18:34, Valentinian Exposition 22:27-28, Against Heresies 2:2:2).

Now, what do the various denominations teach regarding God, the Father?

Adventists:

A personal spiritual invisible being; omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.

Baptists:

God is an infinite, eternal spirit, source and support of all things. Without form of body and in the same perfect Spirit from the Beginning.

Eastern Orthodox:

God is a spiritual personal substance, and as an infinite Spirit, he is everywhere at the same time. Same unchangeable substance from the beginning.

Episcopalians:

God is a personal spirit, infinite, transcending and eminent, without form, body parts or passions so His divinity will not be lost.

Lutherans:

God is a spirit who is absolute Personality, eternal, without body, without parts, (of incomprehensible shape) of infinite power, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient.

Methodists:

God is a personal spirit without body or parts, and in unity of this God-head, there are three persons, of one substance, power and eternity - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Presbyterians:

God is a Spirit. No such thing as "form" or "shape" connected with God. Man is like God in his creation, only in a moral and spiritual sense.

Roman Catholics:

God is a Spirit, which permeated entire universe; no definite form or limit. Same unchangeable substance from beginning. Spiritual - Incorporeal.

What is even more interesting here is that Saint Valentinus was declared a heretic and his doctrines, heresey and unchristian.

It was during this persecution that Iren
Link to comment

In the book, The Godhead by Duane S. Crowther here is one part where he talks about the Nicene Creed and the Savior, pages 267-268:

Three "Births" with Major "Nature of God" Implications

The scriptures speak of Jehovah/Jesus Christ having three "births." They are:

1. His premortal birth as the firstborn spirit child of God the Father.

2. His mortal birth, in the manger at Bethlehem.

3. His "birth" as the firstborn of this earth's resurrected beings.

As will be seen, each one of these three "birth" events, which will be discussed below, present major doctrinal challenges for those whose beliefs are based in "trinitarian" concepts of the nature of God.

"Trinitarians" do not believe in the premortal life of all mankind. Prior to the Council of Nicea in AD 325, varying beliefs existed concerning the status of Christ before His mortal birth. However, when the Arian controversy arose and they sought some say to reconcile their different beliefs concerning the premortal existence and status of Jesus Christ, they finally settled on the words: "i believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, And of all things visible and invisible, And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father" (Philip Schaff, ed., The creeds of Christendom, 1:27).

In the second Catholic "ecumenical council," which was convened by Theodosius in Constantinople in AD 381, changes were made in the wording of the Nicean creed, as follow: "We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, And of all things visible and invisible, And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, Begotten of the Father before all worlds" (Philip Schaff, ed., The Creeds of Christendom, 1:27).

Thus, the AD 381 revisers of the Nicean creed confused the first and second births (Christ's premortal birth and His mortal birth, listed above).

The also added more wording concerning the Holy Ghost. The AD 325 Nicean creed had originally said, only: "And in the Holy Ghost." But in the "updating" of the Nicean creed in AD 381, the Holy Ghost portion was enlarged to read: "And in the Holy Ghost, The Lord, and Giver of life; Who proceedeth from the Father; Who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; Who spake by the prophets" (Philip Schaff, ed., The Creeds of Christendom, 1:29).

The "proceedeth" portion is apparently based on John 15:26 * "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me."

It is interesting how Traditional Christians have gotten the two terms mixed up....Firstborn and Only Begotten.

FIRSTBORN is talking about spiritual creation....Christ is the FIRSTBORN of all of God's spirit children. First means FIRST which second comes after and then third and then fourth and so forth as Spirit Children of God. Christ was preeminent above ALL, a God, Jehovah who would come into the world as a man, Jesus the Christ to atone for all of mankind.'Of whom he did foreknow' is talking about pre-earth life...the preexistence where all the spirits of men dwelled before coming to this earth to gain a tabernacle, a body. Just like the 'Church of the Firstborn' is about the Heavenly Kingdom.

Col. 1: 15, 18

15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

���

18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Rom. 8: 29

29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Heb. 12: 23

23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/tg/j/39

John 1:1-5

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not

D & C 93:21

21 And now, verily I say unto you, I was in the beginning with the Father, and am the Firstborn;

Christ is the FIRSTBORN, meaning he was the first Spirit Child born to God the Father in pre-existence. He is also the FIRSTBORN FROM THE DEAD, which signifies that he was the first person resurrected.

FIRSTBORN MEANS EXACTLY THAT FIRST....IT DOES NOT MEAN 'ONLY.'

~~~~~~~~~~

However....ONLY BEGOTTEN does mean ONLY, mean 'none other.' This term is not used in the scriptures in a spiritual context or pre-mortal, preexistence context where everyone's embodied spirits resided before coming to earth... but is used in the context of earthly life...mortality. And Jesus Christ is the ONLY BEGOTTEN Son of God on this earth, in mortality. No other can claim that God the Father was their father on this earth. Jesus Christ, the Eternal and Great Jehovah is the literal Son of God the Father who was born into mortality...and he is also the literal Son of Mary. He inherited mortality from his mother so that he would have power to lay down his life and die as a mortal. And immortality he inherited from his Father so that he would have the power to rise again, to be resurrected...he had power over death that he inherited from his Father.

ONLY BEGOTTEN SON is a term that is all about Jesus Christ's mortal existence. 'God became man so that man would become god.' He showed the way.

1 Jn. 4: 9

9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

John 3: 16, 18

16

Link to comment

Hannah Rebekeh

And I'm still not sure of all the non-Bibical words they use to to try to explain this away....lets now add consubstantial to the list....which is just the Latin word for the Greek word homoousios.

3DOP

Hi Hannah Rebekeh. It doesn't seem necessary to add consubstantial to the list of non-Biblical words to which you already object when according to you, it means the same thing anyway as another word, in another language already on the list. If a translation of a word makes it a new word, it seems that you haven't used a single biblical word in this entire thread.

I am sure I would interpret as you do if I were LDS regarding the Bible. But I could never interpret the Nicene Creed as you do. It is one thing to understand your own faith well, and I am not arguing against that. It is another to misunderstand and misrepresent someone else's faith. I am sure that is not your intent and you really believe what you are saying about the Nicene Creed. Niether of us is trying to establish that the Nicene Creed is true. I am only trying to establish that the Nicene Creed is consistent with beliefs which you consider to be wrong. You are trying to establish that it is consistent with a particular belief which you consider to be right and in my opinion, you have failed.

If this is now a thread about how certain Mormons are that the Father has a body, I have no comment. If you still think that the Nicene Creed teaches that God the Father has a body, I am disappointed, but I predict it will be me agreeing with most Mormons that it doesn't.

Thanks for your consideration of my thoughts on the matter in any event.

Rory

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...