Arianism Vs. the Trinity

[Brennin]

The late Raymond Brown [Catholic Scholar] who was undoubtedly the worlds leading scholarly authority on John's Gospel on the planet in his day stated in relation to John 4:24 - "This is not an essential definition of God, but a description of God's dealings with men; it means that God is spirit toward men because he gives the spirit [xiv 16] which begets them anew, [Anchor Bible, page 172]. There are in fact two other such descriptions in Johns writtings, God is Light [1 John1:5] and God is Love [1 John 4:8], thou no one has argued that God is a light or a species of Love. In short we must worship the Father "Through The Spirit" which he has given to the church [John 14;16], there being no hint of suggesting that he himself is only a spirit.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

1) I don't think you are in a position to rank Johannine scholars, past or present.

2) This does not really require a Johannine scholar.

3) You did not make recourse to Raymond Brown. You are quoting someone else quoting (in part) Raymond Brown.

[Vance]

The basic problem between us is the redefinition of terminology at the expense of truth.

And it started at the death of the ancient Apostle!

[Vance]

1) I don't think you are in a position to rank Johannine scholars, past or present.

2) This does not really require a Johannine scholar.

3) You did not make recourse to Raymond Brown. You are quoting someone else quoting (in part) Raymond Brown.

Humm,

As Rob Bowman has pointed out here,

A correction is in order here. Someone -- I don't know who -- has taken the above quote, which is actually the LDS writer Eugene Seaich quoting Brown, and made the whole thing out to be a quotation just from Brown. I don't have Seaich's book, but I found a quotation from it that appears to be correct. The quotation from Seaich reads as follows:

As Raymond Brown -- undoubtedly the world's leading scholarly authority on John's Gospel -- explains, "This is not an essential definition of God, but a description of God's dealings with men, it means that God is spirit toward men because he gives the spirit [xiv. 16] which begets them anew" (Anchor Bible, John, p. 172). There are in fact two other such descriptions in John's writing, "God is light" (1 John 1:5), and "God is love" (1 John 4:8 ), though no one has argued that God is a light, or a species of love! In short, one must worship the Father through the Spirit which he has given to the Church (John 14: 16), there being no hint of [sic] suggestion that he is himself "a spirit."

Eugene Seaich, Ancient Texts and Mormonism, 26, as quoted in Michael W. Hickenbotham, Answering Challenging Mormon Questions, 85.

Notice that Seaich ends his quotation from Brown less than halfway through this paragraph. Here is a quotation directly from Brown's commentary, which I do have:

24. God is Spirit. This is not an essential definition of God, but a description of God's dealings with men; it means that God is Spirit toward men because He gives the Spirit [xiv. 16] which begets them anew. " There are two other such descriptions in John's writings, "God is light" (I John i 5), and "God is love" (I John iv 8 ). These too refer to the God who acts; God gives the world His Son, the light of the world (iii 19, viii 12, ix 5) as a sign of His love (iii 16).

Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John (i-xii), Anchor Bible 29 (New York: Doubleday--Anchor Bible, 1966), 172.

Care to point out exactly how this changes the point being made?

[Brennin]

Care to point out exactly how this changes the point being made?

1. According to Rob Bowman, Brown did not write this: "though no one has argued that God is a light, or a species of love! In short, one must worship the Father through the Spirit which he has given to the Church (John 14: 16), there being no hint of [sic] suggestion that he is himself 'a spirit.'"

2. It is disingenuous (or at least poor form) to quote someone else quoting Brown (sloppily, I might add) without attribution.

3. If someone is going to try to have Brown argue on his behalf, then he needs to make recourse to Brown's work directly and quote it accurately.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

3. If someone is going to try to have Brown argue on his behalf, then he needs to make recourse to Brown's work directly and quote it accurately.

So it is your opinion that this

24. God is Spirit. This is not an essential definition of God, but a description of God's dealings with men; it means that God is Spirit toward men because He gives the Spirit [xiv. 16] which begets them anew. " There are two other such descriptions in John's writings, "God is light" (I John i 5), and "God is love" (I John iv 8 ). These too refer to the God who acts; God gives the world His Son, the light of the world (iii 19, viii 12, ix 5) as a sign of His love (iii 16).

Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John (i-xii), Anchor Bible 29 (New York: Doubleday--Anchor Bible, 1966), 172.

Is not Brown's work?

I will note that all of the atributions point to Brown as being the author.

[Vance]

1. According to Rob Bowman, Brown did not write this: "though no one has argued that God is a light, or a species of love! In short, one must worship the Father through the Spirit which he has given to the Church (John 14: 16), there being no hint of [sic] suggestion that he is himself 'a spirit.'"

Which doesn't change the point being made.

2. It is disingenuous (or at least poor form) to quote someone else quoting Brown (sloppily, I might add) without attribution.

???

That is the anti-Mormon modus operandi.

3. If someone is going to try to have Brown argue on his behalf, then he needs to make recourse to Brown's work directly and quote it accurately.

Which Bowman did, and the point being made remains.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Which doesn't change the point being made.

???

That is the anti-Mormon modus operandi.

Which Bowman did, and the point being made remains.

Did he by chance not know who Rob Bowman is? I get the impression that he thinks Rob is LDS.

[Vance]

Did he by chance not know who Rob Bowman is? I get the impression that he thinks Rob is LDS.

I pointed him to that thread earlier. I get the impression that he didn't read through it very well, if at all.

[Anakin7]

Which doesn't change the point being made.

???

That is the anti-Mormon modus operandi.

Which Bowman did, and the point being made remains.

Vance I have been away for some time, thanks for having my back.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[Anakin7]

From memory I believe that F.A.R.M.S has a # of papers on this modalism criticism.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[Anakin7]

Found this in my LDS JEDI Archive - http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-diagnostic-mouse-rollover.htm

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[Vance]

Vance I have been away for some time, thanks for having my back.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

No problem, brother.

[TAO]

As the author of this thread I raised the issue this way

I know, but I am not responding to the thread, I am responding to your posts. I know, I get off topic sometimes, but that's just the way I am. It still needs to be answered. It is true that some may have mis-represented you, but they do not mis-represent Trinitarianism as portrayed by most Trinitarians today. Thus, they are justified in what they say. However, if one wishes to talk of Trinitarianism as defined at the time of the Nicene Creed, you will have to be clear over these issues. (Please use simple answers)

1) Are Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ the same spirit/soul?

2) Are Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ one in purpose?

If you answer those, I can reflect on your post much better. LDS believe for 1) no and 2) yes.

The basic problem between us is the redefinition of terminology at the expense of truth.

Quite on the contrary actually - we seek the truth. We discovered that Trinitarianism (as it was taught in Joseph's time) wasn't quite correct.

What Mormons believe about Jesus. In the pre-existence- Father God (Elohim, his name) with his wife or wives bore us as spirits. Jesus (Jehovah), our elder brother (spirit brother of Lucifer), is just one of many gods and is eternally progressing to make it possible for us to become gods as well.

Close, but not right... or at least not worded how I like it. First parts right, we have Heavenly Father (Elohim) with his wife, and they bore spirits. The first spirit born was Jesus, and many followed. Lucifer was among those those spirits, a spirit brother of Jesus, and a spirit brother to us. Just as Jesus is a spirit brother to us. Then Heavenly Father said "I have a plan, who will be the saviour". One said (Jesus) that he would be the savior. The other (Lucifer) said that he would be it, but also, that not one soul would be lost. However, Lucifer also sought after Heavenly Father's glory, and so he was cast out, and Jesus was made our savior, and also a God. From there, Jesus and Heavenly Father organized the world in their own time, and sent us down to Earth.

As to how he got down to Earth, he was born in the flesh, partly. That's how she's still a virgin. And in a sense, we have all been born twice. Once as a spirit, once to earthly parents. However, for us (unlike Jesus), both of our Earthly Parents were mortal.

Jehovah

[coolrok7]

If you want to discuss the brown statement, please go and discuss it in the other thread that this was a split off of. I'm asking for responses directly related to the thread op which I've repeated a few times already (no one has really addressed it. Thanks.

Anakin7 (aka Tanyan (of the darth Vader motif as that is what Anakin eventually became if I'm not mistaken). I wondered what happened to you as I hadn't seen you post for awhile.

Also, TAO, as I was just typing this, I see that you responded to my last. Get back to you later today as I'm at work now. Thanks.

[Anakin7]

If you want to discuss the brown statement, please go and discuss it in the other thread that this was a split off of. I'm asking for responses directly related to the thread op which I've repeated a few times already (no one has really addressed it. Thanks.

Anakin7 (aka Tanyan (of the darth Vader motif as that is what Anakin eventually became if I'm not mistaken). I wondered what happened to you as I hadn't seen you post for awhile.

Also, TAO, as I was just typing this, I see that you responded to my last. Get back to you later today as I'm at work now. Thanks.

Ah coolrok7 my Lutheran Missouri Synod friend once again you do not get it correct. Remember The Anakin who became "Darth Vader" Repented and Changed at the end. But do you not know that there was another Anakin who was the Son of Luke Skywalker and Mara Jade Skywalker ?. I have been posting here for a time now, for some reason my Tanyan account was no longer able to post. I am still here. How is your backyard ? and front door ?. May True Grace Be With You.

True Salvation Is In Jesus Christ The Person

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[TAO]

Also, TAO, as I was just typing this, I see that you responded to my last. Get back to you later today as I'm at work now. Thanks.

Sounds cool, don't worry 'bout it. =).

[cksalmon]

Where is our Catholic friend David Waltz ?, he would love to talk about this subject with his Catholic friends !.

Salvation is in Christ The Person

Anakin

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

IIRC, David no longer considers himself to be in communion with the Roman Catholic Church.

I'm sure he still has lots of Catholic friends.

[Anakin7]

IIRC, David no longer considers himself to be in communion with the Roman Catholic Church.

I'm sure he still has lots of Catholic friends.

Thanks for the heads up. Where does he attend/fellowship a Church now I wonder ?. Still waiting for his book on The Godhead/tTrinity.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[cksalmon]

Thanks for the heads up. Where does he attend/fellowship a Church now I wonder ?. Still waiting for his book on The Godhead/tTrinity.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

I'm going on remembered past posts on AF. He'd certainly be the guy to ask the questions you've posed.

Perhaps you can track him down.

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/

[Anakin7]

Thanks.

[coolrok7]

I

[Anakin7]

Thanks for sharing that coolrok7 [Roy]. Have you ever opened your front door/back door/windows/church book stores/internet to see all the material out there against Protestant Reformer Martin Luther and Lutheranism ?. According to them you have a False god/False jesus/Falsegospel/False prophet of the reformation - Martin Luther. I see it as a mote/beam casting stone syndrom. I have lutheran friends [one is a Lutheran minister/pastor ] and we get along fine, they believe I and LDS are Hetrodox but not outright unchristian. Basicaly I see/view Lutheranism as Catholicism wearing a Prostestant Robe. I put them in the christian house but with errors. I hope and pray that all is well with you and your family. may True Grace Be With You.

The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine

Salvation Is In Christ The Person

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[TAO]

I

[coolrok7]

Cool =).

Hmm, I don't know why he didn't keep in contact with you... but yah, maybe you should contact him or something.

The story was quite intersting though XD. I think what it meant was that Jesus's disciples (with the exception of Judas) trusted him, whereas the Pharisees were like, tell me what do you plan to entice people with, and what do you think the results will be. Still it's funny, cuz the quotes fits some of the personalities of the disciples XD.

Eh, I wouldn't expect much, Mormons aren't perfect people either. Instead, trust God, his perfection is alot more whole ya' know.

Ah, I did go through an experience, that I did, however, it was unlike yours, sorry. Other people have surely had similar experiences to mine, but the thing is, they don't talk of it much, so I can't really tell how common it might be.

EDIT: Hey anakin, no attacking his beliefs like that plz, thnx.

By the way I did go and visit Dr. Clark up in St. Geatge, Utah where he retired several times after he moved there. Once I had went to visit the Mountain Meadows massacre site and dropped in to see him. Another time I had went up to N. Ogden on a business related trip. I had noticed something out of character for a Mormon of his position (I won't disclose what that was but it was noticeable from the perspective I know of Mormons and their teaching). I found out a few years ago on the internet that he had lived to be 107.

No one this side of heaven is perfect except for Jesus as he could not have been the savior if He wasn't.

I do expect though that people who claim to have the truth not run away from a situation that they started (which they often do)in the sense of proselytizing and not really deal with the questions asked or inconsistent in their teaching that is supposed to be Biblical. Also accurately presenting what others actually believe without distorting it in which was the purpose of this thread in which no one has really answered as of yet (I repeat).

As a Trinitarian who rejects the teaching of Arius (Jesus is a created being) as heretical in which the Nicene Creed was defending against. I'm not a modalist (as there are three in the Godhead and yet they are the one God, not a plurality of g(G)ods so the representation by both Mormons and Witnesses is not accurate. Witnesses are not modalists but are in denial of the Deity of Jesus.