Another EV dichotomy problem.

[ELF1024]

No Rob, our rejection of the Creed is just futher proof that we are correct. The creeds of men are meaningless when it comes to the true nature of God. After all, who are you going to believe, some relative cave man from 1600 years ago? Or God himself? The fact that you continue to choose the wisdom of men is a symptom of YOUR problem, not the LDS Church's problem.

The LDS Church doesn't teach notions against the Bible; it is simply your incorrect intrepretation of the Bible that is at odds with the teachings of both the Bible and the LDS Church.

At some point, Rob, you are going to find out that all of your Ph.D's and other honors from Men are meaningless and pointless folly. Moses had no degrees. Jeremiah had no degrees. Elijah had no degrees. Yet they were all mightier than any of us. What makes you think that your peice of worthless paper showing your detication to the "knowledge of men" makes you any smarter or any more likely to find the truth?

The rutting of your mind in the knowledge of men has blinded you to the truth. Until you are willing to step away from your comfortable rut, you will always be blind in your eyes, and hard in your heart.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance and ELF,

Neither of you addressed the substance of my post, in which I refuted the false claim that Nicene theology is Gnostic.

[Rob Bowman]

ELF,

You wrote:

At some point, Rob, you are going to find out that all of your Ph.D's and other honors from Men are meaningless and pointless folly. Moses had no degrees. Jeremiah had no degrees. Elijah had no degrees. Yet they were all mightier than any of us. What makes you think that your peice of worthless paper showing your detication to the "knowledge of men" makes you any smarter or any more likely to find the truth?

The rutting of your mind in the knowledge of men has blinded you to the truth. Until you are willing to step away from your comfortable rut, you will always be blind in your eyes, and hard in your heart.

I've been looking for someone who could judge my heart. Looks like I've found someone who thinks he's up to the job.

You pretended to have some "knowledge of men" concerning Nicene theology and Gnosticism. Now that your attempt to sound educated on the subject has been soundly refuted, you are attacking me for being educated. Typical.

Look, whatever little truth I know about God and his ways, I base on the writings of Moses, Jeremiah, Matthew, John, Paul, and the rest of the biblical authors, through whom we have the word of the Lord. That is my authority, not some piece of "worthless paper" that I or other scholars might have. I have a lot of respect for uneducated persons who love God, who adhere to his truth, and who make no pretensions at academic knowledge. I have no patience with persons who pretend to have such knowledge until they are caught with their intellectual pants down, at which point they try to distract attention from their own embarrassment by piously denigrating the "knowledge of men."

[Zakuska]

Vance and ELF,

Neither of you addressed the substance of my post, in which I refuted the false claim that Nicene theology is Gnostic.

Perhaps Rob is unaware of this...

Homoousian (Greek: ?????????, from the Greek: ????, hom

[ELF1024]

Vance and ELF,

Neither of you addressed the substance of my post, in which I refuted the false claim that Nicene theology is Gnostic.

"According to gnosticism, the true God is unknowable." - Christian History

"There is a great invisible Spirit, which no eye of angel has ever seen, no thought of heart has ever comprehended, and it was never called by any name." - The Gospel of Judas

Sure sounds like parts of the Creed to me. It's all realted to the Hellenization of Christianity. As much of Gnostic belief is tied to the followers of Plato.

[Hick Preacher]

That may be true, but we have never accepted the Nicean Creed. We have been "creedless" for as long as we have been a church. To the heartburn of many of our Christian brothers and sisters. It has been our rejection of the Nicean Creed that has caused many to question our relationship to the "Christian" club.

As I have said before, the Nicean Creed seems to be based on the Gnostic idea of God. That is to say that God is unknowable and uncomprehendable.

The Nicene Creed does not even imply that God is unknowable and uncomprehendable.

It specifically states that Jesus came to Earth-- this connects with a knowable God.

It specifically states that the Holy Spirit came from God (to Man) this too is all about God being knowable.

God is transcendent and Immanent too. It is possible if a person only stressed certain aspects of God's transcendence that someone would say that that person is saying God is unknowable. But this is not the case through out the history of Christianity and Christian Churches-- always transcendence and Immanence are paired. This is expressed in the New Testament also as it is written:

1 Tim 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.

[Hick Preacher]

Still unacceptable.

Yet if you closely examine D&C 20 it is infering that the Godhead is one being who is transcendent-

17By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them;

18And that he created man, male and female, after his own image and in his own likeness, created he them;

19And gave unto them commandments that they should love and serve him, the only living and true God, and that he should be the only being whom they should worship.

This harmonizes well with traditional orthodoxy of the fifth century A.D.

[Vance]

Vance and ELF,

Neither of you addressed the substance of my post, in which I refuted the false claim that Nicene theology is Gnostic.

Your point is irrelevant. The creed isn't the result of inspiration from God, nor revelation, nor a true understanding of scripture, but the result of the philosophies of men. That is the problem with it. It isn't true doctrine.

[Rob Bowman]

Zakuska,

Please identify at least two Gnostic texts that you personally have read. I am curious to know if you have any firsthand knowledge of the subject, or if you are dependent on sources like Wikipedia.

The use of the term homoousious in the Nicene Creed is an example of Christian theologians co-opting a term that had been used originally to express unbiblical notions. By the time of Nicea the term had already been in use by orthodox, non-Gnostic theologians for about a century to express the truth that the Father and the Son shared the same nature or essence. Its use in Gnosticism was completely different. Appealing to the Gnostic coinage of the word to dismiss Trinitarianism as Gnostic is as superficial as dismissing the Gospel of John as Stoic because of its use of the term logos in John 1:1.

[Hick Preacher]

Perhaps Rob is unaware of this...

I say the Nicean Creed is thoroughly Gnostic.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Homoousian

Dude-- by this same reasoning we must all be a bunch of Pagan Celtic polytheists because we use the term "God"-- a germanic pagan word used to describe valkyrie and other evil spirits.

[Vance]

Yet if you closely examine D&C 20 it is infering that the Godhead is one being who is transcendent-

17By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them;

18And that he created man, male and female, after his own image and in his own likeness, created he them;

19And gave unto them commandments that they should love and serve him, the only living and true God, and that he should be the only being whom they should worship.

This harmonizes well with traditional orthodoxy of the fifth century A.D.

Referring, of course, to the Father. Just add more context.

20 But by the transgression of these holy laws man became sensual and devilish, and became fallen man.

21 Wherefore, the Almighty God gave his Only Begotten Son, as it is written in those scriptures which have been given of him.

22 He suffered temptations but gave no heed unto them.

23 He was crucified, died, and rose again the third day;

24 And ascended into heaven, to sit down on the right hand of the Father, to reign with almighty power according to the will of the Father;

So, what was your point?

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

If saying that Nicene theology is not Gnostic is "irrelevant," then saying that Nicene theology is Gnostic is also irrelevant. So, you are saying that ELF's criticism was irrelevant. Do you see that?

Your point is irrelevant. The creed isn't the result of inspiration from God, nor revelation, nor a true understanding of scripture, but the result of the philosophies of men. That is the problem with it. It isn't true doctrine.

[Rob Bowman]

Hick Preacher,

You wrote:

Dude-- by this same reasoning we must all be a bunch of Pagan Celtic polytheists because we use the term "God"-- a germanic pagan word used to describe valkyrie and other evil spirits.

Exactly. The argument is a simple genetic fallacy.

[Hick Preacher]

Your point is irrelevant. The creed isn't the result of inspiration from God, nor revelation, nor a true understanding of scripture, but the result of the philosophies of men. That is the problem with it. It isn't true doctrine.

If Creeds are so terrible, why does the D&C section 20 then so closely follow the motif, structure, parallel ideas, key words theological wording, and purpose of a Creed? Specifically the Nicene Creed?

[ELF1024]

Vance,

If saying that Nicene theology is not Gnostic is "irrelevant," then saying that Nicene theology is Gnostic is also irrelevant. So, you are saying that ELF's criticism was irrelevant. Do you see that?

I'll agree with that, since the Creed is soundly false, my criticism is irrelevant.

[Vance]

The use of the term homoousious in the Nicene Creed is an example of UNINSPIRED Christian theologians co-opting a term that had been used originally to express unbiblical notions AND STILL DOES. By the time of Nicea the term had already been in use by UNINSPIRED orthodox, non-Gnostic theologians for about a century to express the truth that the Father and the Son shared the same nature or essence.

There, fixed it for you.

[Vance]

Vance,

If saying that Nicene theology is not Gnostic is "irrelevant," then saying that Nicene theology is Gnostic is also irrelevant. So, you are saying that ELF's criticism was irrelevant. Do you see that?

Neither of which is relevant to the fact that, the creed isn't the result of inspiration from God, nor revelation, nor a true understanding of scripture, but the result of the philosophies of men. That is the problem with it. It isn't true doctrine.

[Vance]

If Creeds are so terrible, why does the D&C section 20 then so closely follow the motif, structure, parallel ideas, key words theological wording, and purpose of a Creed? Specifically the Nicene Creed?

In the cross traffic, I think you missed this.

[Hick Preacher]

Referring, of course, to the Father. Just add more context.

20 But by the transgression of these holy laws man became sensual and devilish, and became fallen man.

21 Wherefore, the Almighty God gave his Only Begotten Son, as it is written in those scriptures which have been given of him.

22 He suffered temptations but gave no heed unto them.

23 He was crucified, died, and rose again the third day;

24 And ascended into heaven, to sit down on the right hand of the Father, to reign with almighty power according to the will of the Father;

So, what was your point?

Actually the only being to be worshiped-- is the framer of Heaven and Earth-- and the one who gave commands to Adam and Eve-- in Genesis that was the Lord God (Jehovah). Likewise in the LDS book of Moses it was the Lord God-- Jehovah.

So the only being to be worshiped in D&C 20 has to include Christ / Jehovah.

This means that D&C 20 indicates that The Father and the Son are that one same only being-- it is actually inferring that the Father and Son are the same one being- just like the Nicene Creed.

[ELF1024]

Actually the only being to be worshiped-- is the framer of Heaven and Earth-- and the one who gave commands to Adam and Eve-- in Genesis that was the Lord God (Jehovah). Likewise in the LDS book of Moses it was the Lord God-- Jehovah.

So the only being to be worshiped in D&C 20 has to include Christ / Jehovah.

This means that D&C 20 indicates that The Father and the Son are that one same only being-- it is actually inferring that the Father and Son are the same one being- just like the Nicene Creed.

SO Christ is sitting on his own right hand? Really?!

20 But by the transgression of these holy laws man became sensual and devilish, and became fallen man.

21 Wherefore, the Almighty God gave his Only Begotten Son, as it is written in those scriptures which have been given of him.

22 He suffered temptations but gave no heed unto them.

23 He was crucified, died, and rose again the third day;

24 And ascended into heaven, to sit down on the right hand of the Father, to reign with almighty power according to the will of the Father;

[Vance]

Actually the only being to be worshiped-- is the framer of Heaven and Earth--

God, the Father presided over this effort.

. . . and the one who gave commands to Adam and Eve--

God, the Father presided over this effort.

. . . in Genesis that was the Lord God (Jehovah).

God, the Father presided over this effort.

Likewise in the LDS book of Moses it was the Lord God-- Jehovah.

God, the Father presided over this effort.

So the only being to be worshiped in D&C 20 has to include Christ / Jehovah.

Sorry, but in context it is God, the Father.

This means that D&C 20 indicates that The Father and the Son are that one same only being--

A false conclusion based on a false premise and faulty logic.

it is actually inferring that the Father and Son are the same one being- just like the Nicene Creed.

A false conclusion based on a false premise and faulty logic.

[Rob Bowman]

ELF,

You wrote:

I'll agree with that, since the Creed is soundly false, my criticism is irrelevant.

That's your only recourse, since your criticism itself has been proven false.

[Hick Preacher]

Referring, of course, to the Father. Just add more context.

20 But by the transgression of these holy laws man became sensual and devilish, and became fallen man.

21 Wherefore, the Almighty God gave his Only Begotten Son, as it is written in those scriptures which have been given of him.

22 He suffered temptations but gave no heed unto them.

23 He was crucified, died, and rose again the third day;

24 And ascended into heaven, to sit down on the right hand of the Father, to reign with almighty power according to the will of the Father;

So, what was your point?

As I noted above-- Books of Genesis and LDS Moses both demonstrate that this God must also include Jehovah/Christ. It is He who performed the creative works and personally commanded Adam as mentioned in D&C 20.

Also other LDS scriptures command the worship of Christ--

as the Book of Mormon says--

2 Nephi 25:

29 And now behold, I say unto you that the right way is to believe in Christ, and deny him not; and Christ is the Holy One of Israel; wherefore ye must bow down before him, and worship him with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul; and if ye do this ye shall in nowise be cast out.

So if there is only one being to be worshiped---and Christ is worshiped, and the Father is worshiped-- then the two persons are thus this one same being.

[ELF1024]

That's your only recourse, since your criticism itself has been proven false.

I disagree that my "opinion" has been proven false. Any more than any of your "opinions" have been proven false. I will continue to research it, and I will come up with my conclusions, thank you very much.

If I find a use for you, I'll let you know.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I find your penchant for "fixing" what others say obnoxious.