Diferent Trinity View Points

[cion]

Very uncomfortable indeed. In fact, it borders on blasphemy, imo.

I guess you meant it to be cutsey, but it goes too far.

I did not intend it to by cutsey. I'm sorry that you feel my beliefs are blasphemy. Some people are not as comfortable having a deep relationship with a father figure as they are with a motherly figure.

I find these concepts fascinating and deeply comforting. It might be helpful to keep in mind that not everyone has the same viewpoint of "father" as you.

[Ivan Komotios]

bluebell,

You wrote:

I am familiar with those references. Not one of them speaks of the Godhead as a plurality of beings. In fact, Colossians 2:9 says that the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Christ bodily. How can the fullness of three Gods dwell bodily in one of those Gods?

You wrote:

I agree. The CFR concerned the use of "Godhead" to refer to a plurality of Gods.

The Word telestial is found in the Bible either or found in Book of Mormon.........do you still believe in the telestial glory?

[cion]

cion:

You can pray to whomever you like. But LDS doctrine is that we pray only to The Father.

Agreed.

But I think there are some times when (according to LDS theology) it is acceptable to pray in your heart to Jesus. Maybe during times of sorrow for your sins or something. When I read 3 Nephi 17, I feel a sense of awe and tenderness towards Jesus and it becomes kind of a prayer to him when I read it. So, it might be impossible to not ever pray to Jesus because of the focus LDS doctrine has on Jesus. It just kind of happens. It's more of a "in your heart" kind of thing than vocal, formal prayer.

[Ivan Komotios]

I found the content of your post under two different names on two different sites. If this is not a cut and paste of your own work, you need to provide a reference or link to give credit to the actual author. If it is your own work, it would be wise to say "I wrote this elsewhere" to avoid claims of plagiarism.

I said it came from Athanasion Creed and Easton Bible Dictionary ??

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I said Substance is a synounom for Godhead, I think you know where Godhead is found in the Bible

Ah but is it? Were in the bible do we learn that substance is a synounom for Godhead?

[Rob Bowman]

Ivan,

You wrote:

The Word telestial is found in the Bible either or found in Book of Mormon.........do you still believe in the telestial glory?

I think you mean that the word telestial is not found in the Bible or the Book of Mormon. To answer your question, no, I don't believe in the telestial glory. I am not LDS. However, it is not merely the absence of the word in the Bible that is the issue, but the absence of any clear basis in the Bible for the idea that the word expresses.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

bluebell,

You wrote:

I am familiar with those references. Not one of them speaks of the Godhead as a plurality of beings. In fact, Colossians 2:9 says that the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Christ bodily. How can the fullness of three Gods dwell bodily in one of those Gods?

You wrote:

I agree. The CFR concerned the use of "Godhead" to refer to a plurality of Gods.

CKSalmon has an itneresting view on that very verse of scripture. Lets look at it. Bummer it looks like it is not found.

Any way it is one thing to say the fullness of the godhead dwells in Christ Bodily vs the Godhead is in the person of Jesus Body.

I will look and see if I can find it.

[thesometimesaint]

1 Corinthians 15:41-49 (New American Standard Bible)

41. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.

42. So also is the resurrection of the dead It is sown, a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body;

[Calm]

I said it came from Athanasion Creed and Easton Bible Dictionary ??

Are you Ron? If not, then the reality is that he said they were from the Creed and Dictionary and you just cut and pasted his comments or at least borrowed them.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Ivan,

You wrote:

I think you mean that the word telestial is not found in the Bible or the Book of Mormon. To answer your question, no, I don't believe in the telestial glory. I am not LDS. However, it is not merely the absence of the word in the Bible that is the issue, but the absence of any clear basis in the Bible for the idea that the word expresses.

It might not appear but it is alluded to.

38But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.

39All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

40There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

41There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

42So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

43It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

44It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

45And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Oh well, you have seen this all before and I am sure you will have a nice perspective to consider.

[Vance]

In fact, Colossians 2:9 says that the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Christ bodily.

And it doesn't need to mean what you think it means. It is nice how that works.

[mfbukowski]

The Word telestial is found in the Bible either or found in Book of Mormon.........do you still believe in the telestial glory?

Really?

Oh gosh, my faith is crushed. In just a few words you have dis-proven everything.

[3DOP]

I did not intend it to by cutsey. I'm sorry that you feel my beliefs are blasphemy. Some people are not as comfortable having a deep relationship with a father figure as they are with a motherly figure.

I find these concepts fascinating and deeply comforting. It might be helpful to keep in mind that not everyone has the same viewpoint of "father" as you.

I am a little relieved that mfbukowski might find it blasphemous that you refer to God as a "guy". Such cavalier familiarity seems incompatible with any fear of God, which is the beginning of wisdom. Assuredly, "perfect love casteth out fear", but does perfect love give us a "guy"? Is it really possible to appropriately worship a being that could be accurately described as a "guy"?

[Calm]

I am a little relieved that mfbukowski might find it blasphemous that you refer to God as a "guy". Such cavalier familiarity seems incompatible with any fear of God, which is the beginning of wisdom. Assuredly, "perfect love casteth out fear", but does perfect love give us a "guy"? Is it really possible to appropriately worship a being that could be accurately described as a "guy"?

It reminded me of "Buddy Christ".

There is definitely variation on what people think is respectful or appropriate language when speaking of the divine.

I believe in bringing heaven down to earth, not so okay with making heaven 'earthy'.

[cksalmon]

CKSalmon has an itneresting view on that very verse of scripture. Lets look at it. Bummer it looks like it is not found.

Hi Mola--

I looked, too. To my chagrin, I couldn't find anything (and I looked pretty closely) particularly interesting that I've written on that topic "here," either. (At least as was captured in the archives prior to the reboot.) Bummer, indeed!

I did find an old response I'd made specifically to you about ὑπόστασις in Hebrews, but that's probably not what you're thinking of.

Best.

cks

[Ivan Komotios]

Great, were in teh bible does it say they are one substance?

Substance is from the Latin Father orginally substantia meaning from same family that of being God, or Godhead. Godhead is found in the Bible

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Substance is from the Latin Father orginally substantia meaning from same family that of being God, or Godhead. Godhead is found in the Bible

CFR please.

And wile were are at it, the bible was not written in latin. IT was writtin in greek. And to my knowledge the greek words for "one substance" does not appear in teh bible.

Try again.

[Vance]

Substance is from the Latin Father orginally substantia meaning from same family that of being God, or Godhead. Godhead is found in the Bible

Sorry, but saying that two people are of the same substance has quite a different meaning than saying that two people are of the same family.

[Ivan Komotios]

It might not appear but it is alluded to.

38But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.

39All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

40There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

41There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

42So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

43It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

44It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

45And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Oh well, you have seen this all before and I am sure you will have a nice perspective to consider.

[Ivan Komotios]

It might not appear but it is alluded to.

38But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.

39All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

40There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

41There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

42So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

43It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

44It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

45And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Oh well, you have seen this all before and I am sure you will have a nice perspective to consider.

Very good spiritual body is celestal body { glory, power, honor, incorruption, infinite,} flesh and bone

terrestrial body is {dishonor, weakness, natural, corruption, finite} flesh and blood

it's a message about our bodies not different heavens

[Ivan Komotios]

Sorry, but saying that two people are of the same substance has quite a different meaning than saying that two people are of the same family.

look it up in dictonary subsistentia

[ChristKnight]

look it up in dictonary subsistentia

The word is substantia not subsistentia. "One substance" comes from substantia, which is why traditional Christians say that they are "consubstantial".

[mfbukowski]

terrestrial body is {dishonor, weakness, natural, corruption, finite} flesh and blood

But wait a minute.

40There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

41There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

It compares the "terrestrial body" to the GLORY of the moon, as compared to the sun.

That doesn't sound like

{dishonor, weakness, natural, corruption, finite} flesh and blood

to me at all!!

And what kind of body on your theory are the stars being compared to? The stars are above the earth and glow in their glory- what kind of body does that???

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Very good spiritual body is celestal body { glory, power, honor, incorruption, infinite,} flesh and bone

terrestrial body is {dishonor, weakness, natural, corruption, finite} flesh and blood

it's a message about our bodies not different heavens

Sorry, that is not what the text says. It never equates celetial with flesh and bone and terrestrial as flesh and blood.

What the text does say is that there are 3 glories. One fo the sun one of the moon and one of the stars, and different stars differ in their glory. And currently I would say that our physical bodies right now do not posses any glory. Are our bodies in this current state glowing, like that of the moon, sun, or stars?

It is very important to note that those verses are specifally talking about the resurrection.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

But wait a minute.

It compares the "terrestrial body" to the GLORY of the moon, as compared to the sun.

That doesn't sound like

to me at all!!

And what kind of body on your theory are the stars being compared to? The stars are above the earth and glow in their glory- what kind of body does that???

This is a better analysis than I gave.